MuhammedAli

Mujjay Fatawah Rasheedia ki scanned image chayeh jis mein Gangohi nay Ismail Dehalvi ki toba ka inqar keeya heh.

Taqwiyat ul-Iman - Shaykh Dehalvi Wrote Prophet Said: One Day I Will Die And Mingle Into Dust.

Introduction:

Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote many repugnant statements where he is insulting the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And his style of hurling abuse and insults at the Prophets and Awliyah of Ummah in garb of protecting/promoting Tawheed is a trade mark of Deobandi and Wahhabi scholarship of subcontinent and anyone who is influenced by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Here in this article I will mainly discuss one such statement – where he made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lie by making him say, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, which literally translates to, one day I will die [and] mingle/mix with dust. This article will provide linguistic, idiomatic, contextual usage of, mitti mein milna/milnay, and demonstrate how each changes the meaning of words. In addition to this other bits and bobs relating to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s quoted content also be addressed.

1.0 - Controversial And Kufri Statement Subject Of Dispute:

Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi writes in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman: “ … Abu Dawud nay zikr keeya keh Qays Bin Sa’d nay naqal keeya keh, gaya mein aik shehr mein, jis ka naam Hira heh, so dekha mein nay wahan kay logoon ko, Sajdah kartay thay apnay Raja ko, so kaha mein nay albatta peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ziyada layk hen keh Sajda keejiyeh un ko, phir aya mein peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay pass, phir kaha mein nay keh, gaya tha Hira mein, so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon, Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray, na kabi kam howay. Is Hadith say maloom huwa keh Sajdah nah kissi zinda ho keejiyeh, na kissi murda ko, na kissi qabr ko, na kissi thaan ko keun ke’h …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] Hadith employed by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi has already been translated into English and I will employ online English translation but make changes where needed to reflect Urdu peculiarities in translation added by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in translation of Hadith: “In Mishkat (in Book of Marriage) chapter 10 of Wives, here, it is written that Abu Dawud, here, mentioned: “Qays Ibn Sa’d said I travelled to a city whose name is Hirah and there I saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a Satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you/tum have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrate themselves before tum/you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning, I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor reduce. From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu]

1.1 - Translations Of Ahadith Referenced In Taqwiyat ul-Iman By Shaykh Dehalvi:

“Narrated Qays Ibn Sa'd: I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me , if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B11, H2135, here.]“Qais Ibn Sa'd said: I went to al-Hira and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said, “God’s Messenger has most right to have prostration made before him.” When I came to God’s Messenger I said, “I went to al-Hira and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right to have people prostrating themselves before you.” He replied, “Tell me; if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it?” Then when I said that I would not, he replied, “None of you must do it. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to the husbands by God.” Abu Dawud transmitted it, and Ahmad transmitted it on the authority of Mu'adh b. Jabal.” [Ref: Mishkat, B13, H183, here.]

2.0 - Usage Of Tum/You In Urdu And When Its Usage Denotes Disrespect:

(i) Tum in Urdu is used when age of speaker and addressed are of similar age, or there is similarity in social standing. Such usage would not denote insult, nor disrespect. Son using tum/you for his father, or mother, or seniors, or a student using tum/you for teachers, or Madrassa Talib ul-Ilm, or Mureed employing tum/you for Shaykh even IF there is similarity of age is and would be deemed disrespectful by anyone aware of culture of subcontinent and Urdu language. The only known exception to this is usage is use of TUM/you poetical verses. In ordinary daily life addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with tum/you would be disrespectful and this is translation of Hadith not a poem. (ii) In English we do not have ‘you’ of respect but in Urdu there is you of respect and numbers – meaning aap/you. Similar to Arabic in English when a Mureed says to his Shaykh: Shaykh you said this. Than you would be translated according to his standing – meaning aap/you. Same word you IF used for someone younger than me or lower in social standing would be translated to tum/you. Similarly to Arabic how you is translated in Urdu depending upon personality, age, social standing in the same way Arabic anta is to be translated in Urdu. IF a person of lower standing addresses a senior in age, or senior social standing, or senior in knowledge, or senior in spiritual rank with tum/you it is seen as sign of bad manners and disrespect.

2.1 – Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Translation Of Hadith Is Disrespectful:

Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi translated anta as in “… lahum fa’anta ahaqqu …” to mean tum/you: “… so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala …” Without getting into technicalities of Arabic grammar it should be noted anta should have been translated to aap/you. Miskhat ul-Masabih translated by Ghayr Muqallid Abu Uns Muhammad Sarwar Gohar and published with Tehqeeq & Takhreej of Shaykh Zubayr Ali translated anta to respectful aap: “… Sajdah kartay dekha, aap ziyada haqdar hen ke’h aap (i.e. saw them prostrate, you/aap are more deserving) …” [Ref: Mishkat ul-Masabih, by Abu Uns Muhammad Sarwar Gohar, Vol2, Page235, here.] Furthermore Deobandi published Sharh of Mishkat ul-Masabih has following translation: “Lihaza aap (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is kay ziyada mustahaq hen (i.e. therefore you/app are more deserving of this )…” [Ref: Mazhar e Haq Sharh Mishkat ul-Masabih, by Muhammad Qutb ad-Din Khan Dehalvi, Vol3, Page271, here.] I have limited myself to only just two examples of translation IF there is need I will demonstrate with many more examples from Deobandi and Ghayr-Muqallid scholarship that anta in this context and when it is in context of esteemed personality than it should be translated to respectful aap/you instead of disrespectful tum/you.

2.2 - Usage Of Usko/Him: - Contexts Where These Denote Disrespect:

(i) Similar to usage of tum/you usage of usko/him depending upon for whom it is used for establishes bad manners and disrespect. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi translated the Hadith in manner in which companion is allegedly using usko/him to make referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I cannot comprehend a common and sane individual using usko/him while referencing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and denoting that a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed such insulting tone is serious enough to blow any reader’s mind whose Urdu, subcontinent culture, sense of morality and good manners is intact. This usko similar to tum/you is used by equals for each other, or used by a senior for junior in age, standing, knowledge etc. IF a junior uses for a senior, or child uses for parents, or a similar aged student for teacher, or Mureed for his Shaykh – in all these cases usage of usko denotes disrespect. And speaker does not have respect for one whom he is addressing with usko. (ii) Seemingly Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi has made a companion use the problematic words, tum/you and usko/him. He is insinuating that companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not honour and respect him as an esteemed person but instead they treated him like a man themselves. His translation of tum/you, and usko/him also teaches something to its readers: This is how the companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) addressed him with tum/you and usko/him of equality/lesser-ness and it is acceptable to employ such language for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which insinuates lack of love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

3.0 - Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Kind OF Insinuates Walking Over My Grave:

(i) Shaykh Ismail Dehavli’s translation is: “…so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, jo too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo …” A Deobandi employed Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s usage of words par (on/onto) and guzray (travel/pass) to reason his point of view that grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was extremely low/level to ground that people could walk over it. I consulted a scholar with regards to translation and he said translation of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not blameworthy but application by Deobandi Shaykh is blameworthy and Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not to be blamed. He said the wording does denote meaning of walking by the grave. (ii) Years ago when I raised this point against a Deobandi and he attempted to justify Deobandi Shaykh’s point by arguing: “Par means on as in, kis par (on what), and with combination of guzray wording of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi par could also mean over. IF it was said, mein guzra in ki sarrak par say, it would mean, I travelled over their road. IF it is said, jo too guzray meri sarrak par, this would mean, that IF you pass over/on my road. What I am establishing is that in Urdu, jo too guzray meri Qabr/Sarrak par, denotes meaning of walking on road, on grave, over grave, over road. Translation of bold part would be, that IF you travel over my grave, or that IF you travel on my grave. You cannot walk on something without being over it.” This is roughly what he used to defend Deobandi Shaykh’s position. Once again I will point out here the translation isn’t an issue the application by said Deobandi Shaykh is. (iii) As said earlier based on words, “… jo too guzray meri qabr par …”, Deobandi Shaykh was arguing grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was low enough to walk over. And indirectly insinuated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was absolutely OK with people walking over his blessed resting place. He argued Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi's wording also conveys that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wanted companions to not to overly respect him after his death as walking over the grave would insinuate but IF need be walk over my grave.

4.0 - Insult And Disrespect Of Prophet Is Not Accidental Rather Deliberate:

(i) Anyone who speaks Urdu and has lived in culture of Indian subcontinent will be aware usage of tum and uko are not accidental. As a child in subcontinent culture before entering nursery you have already learnt plural form of following is of respect and for whom tum (singular; you), app (plural; you), usko (singular; him, that-one) and plural unko is to be used for. This knowledge is so innate to our language and culture that it’s like breathing. Even IF one does not speak Urdu in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan even than every native language, every dialect of Punjabi has equivalents of tum/you, aap/you, usko and unko. (ii) I am from Azad Kashmir, Mirpur. In our native Punjabi dialect called Mirpuri word toon is equivalent of tum and tusan is equivlent of aap. Equivlent of usko in Mirpuri is usni/usna/uski and respectful Urdu of this would be unneh and its equivalent is unna in Mirpuri. Point being made is these distinctions are are so imbued into our culture to assume these were out of ignorance is too much to ask. Hence usage of these words by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi isn’t and can’t be accidental or lack of education. (iii) A similitude closer to home in Western culture is needed to put in perspective what has been written. Imagine someone in America, UK addresses his/her mother, or father by name with addition of, oye. Son saying to his father: Oye! James drop me to college. And than claims, O, I didn’t know this was disrespectful, or I didn’t mean to be disrespectful.

4.1 - Challenge -: Ask Urdu Speakers IF These Denote Disrespect And Insult:

I challenge readers whose native or mother tongue is not Urdu to approach any Urdu speaker and enquire: What should a junior use for a senior tum or aap? Also enquire IF a junior in age, standing, knowledge, others examples I have mentioned earlier uses these words for his seniors than what is being insinuated. He has no respect for person whom the words are being used and is being disrespectful. Also enquire what are implications of using tum, or usko when these words are used by Ummati for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), companions? IF there is a problem enquire explicitly: Does such usage by an Ummati denote disrespect/insult or politeness/love for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Quote the problematic translation: “ … phir aya mein peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay pass, phir kaha mein nay keh, gaya tha Hira mein, so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo.“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] There is no to little chance a Urdu speaker and a Muslim who loves Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would contradict me. The only exception is a man/woman who has been programed by Shayateen to accept Kufr as Islam and one who is a Kafir.

5.0 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Interpretation Of Hadith -: Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala Hoon:

(i) At the end of quoting Hadith Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi presents his interpretation in following words: “ … joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni: Mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon, Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray, na kabi kam howay. Is Hadith say maloom huwa keh Sajdah nah kissi zinda ho keejiyeh, na kissi murda ko, na kissi qabr ko, na kissi thaan ko keun ke’h …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] “…Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/to-him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning: I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor reduce. From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] The questionable statement can also be translated as: “I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay).” There is no notable difference in meaning of these two translations nor they go against naturally conveyed meaning of Urdu. To mix and to integrate with dust the entity must disintegrate hence another way of translation would be: “I will one day die (and) disintegrate into dust (after decay).” All of these translations convey natural meaning of this controversial statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. (ii) In English the translation looses its natural sting and insulting tone but in Urdu it is very obviously insulting.

5.1 - Prophet Said, Earth Is Forbidden To Consume To Bodies Of Prophets:

Contrary to what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote it is recorded in many Ahadith that Prophets do not decompose and mix into dust as dust: “Narrated Aws ibn Aws: The Prophet said: Among the most excellent of your days is Friday; on it Adam was created, on it he died, on it the last trumpet will be blown, and on it the shout will be made, so invoke more blessings on me that day, for your blessings will be submitted to me. The people asked: Messenger of Allah, how can it be that our blessings will be submitted to you while your body is decayed? He replied: Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B3, H1042, here.] “Aws b. Aws reported the Messenger of Allah as saying: Among the most excellent of your days is Friday; so invoke many blessings on me on that day, for your blessing will be submitted to me. They (the Companions) asked: Messenger of Allah, how can our blessings be submitted to you, when your body has decayed? He said: Allah has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1526, here.] “It was narrated that Shaddad bin Aws said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The best of your days is Friday. On it Adam was created, on it the Trumpet will be blown, on it all creatures will swoon. So send a great deal of peace and blessings upon me on that day, for your peace and blessings will be presented to me.’ A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, how will our peace and blessings be shown to you when you will have disintegrated?’ He said: ‘Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H1085, here.] “It was narrated from Abu Darda’ that the Messenger of Allah said: “Send a great deal of blessing upon me on Fridays, for it is witnessed by the angels. No one sends blessing upon me but his blessing will be presented to me, until he finishes them.” A man said: “Even after death?” He said: “Even after death, for Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets, so the Prophet of Allah is alive and receives provision.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1637, here.] We believe what the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught us and believe in him as he deserves to be believed and we reject disbelievers.

5.2 - Dictionary And Common Usage Of Phrase Mitti Mein Milnay:

(i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used idiomatic phrase, mitti mein milnay (i.e. mix in dust), and it is important to see how these words are used in Urdu: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: (i) Idiom: - To mix with dust, (ii) body/jism turning into dust, (iii) to turn away from original state, to turn bad.  Mitti mein milana -: Idiom: - To mix with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicate from existence. to bury, tasteless/enjoy-less, to waste, to loose (an item sense). “ [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] In addition to Feroz ul-Lughat I have also checked Jhangir ul-Lughat and in it there is only one entry related to topic: “Idiom -: Mitti mein milna -: To mix/integrate with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicating from existence, joyless/tasteless, to waste.” [Ref: Jhangir ul-Lughat, Page 1348, by Wasi-Ullah Khokhar, here.] An unknown dictionary also has entry under, mitti mein milana, it gives same meanings as Feroz ul-Lughat’s entry of, mitti mein milana: “To mix with dust, to destroy, to bury, to disintegrate, to waste.” [Ref: Unknown Dictionary, Page 533, here.] (ii) Closest entry to mitti mein milnay is in Feroz ul-Lughat as mitti mein mil jana (milna). Maulvi Feroz ud-Deen Sahib added milna (mix) in brackets. He is indicating that alternative of, mitti mein mil-jana, is, mitti mein milna. Milna and milnay are exactly the same words in meaning just milnay is plural form of milna. The other entry mitti mein milana is just a variation of same. (iii) Urdu idiom mitti mein milna/milana and it’s other variations are commonly used with connotation of degrading someone to extremely low level – to nothing. Ninety-nine point nine percentage of Urdu speakers/readers will understand these words of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi as Maulvi Feroz Ud-Deen has: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: (i) Idiom: - To mix with dust, (ii) body/jism turning into dust, (iii) to turn away from original state, to turn bad.” There are two possible exceptions, a) the grammarians, poets, b) common Urdu speaker whose has been pretty viciously coached to reconcile, mitti mein milnay wala hoon, with; will be buried in grave, with help of dictionaries. I am confident IF targetted poet/grammarian knew these words were written about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) than selling Deobandi snake oil (i.e. this is not insulting Prophet) will be impossible. Especially IF they are educated in Islam and are familiar with sort of decorum a Muslims needs to observe in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

5.3 – Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Target Audience And Well Beaten Path:

Do make note Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman to remedy alleged Shirk of over-whelming population of Muslims in subcontinent. It was than and is even to this day mass printed and distributed amongst commoners whose Urdu is at best elementary grade. And it is no where near the level to come to understanding, mitti mein milnay wala hoon, means, will be burried in grave. To investigate IF my bias is effecting my understanding I have literally presented a part of this statement to tens of Urdu speakers from Pakistan and India asking them what does it mean to them: Mein Muhammed Ali aik din mar mar mitti mein milnay wala hoon. And not one, by Allah, not one person has said it means: I Muhammed Ali will one day die and will be burried in a grave. They all said similar to meanings: I will one day die and mix with dust.

6.0 – Demonstrating Why, Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala, Is Insulting - 01:

(i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi doesn’t say what he wants to say but made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say it: “…Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/to-him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning: I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] This is a sophisticated/sly way of insulting and degrading Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). How? Imagine a conversation between Jahil and Shaykh Dehalvi and I as historian commenting on the event. (ii)  Jahil: Is it permissible to have sexual relationship with my beautiful daughter. Shaykh Dehalvi: Does Islam allow you to marry her? Jahil: No. Shaykh Dehalvi: Than don’t. Muhammed Ali: Meaning how can I Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi allow you to have intercourse with biological your daughter, even though I would enjoy it with my own daughter, it is Haram. (iii) What is the point of adding the underlined detail? Was this really needed? IF not what I am attempting to do? Answer. First of all I wrote that because I have intense dislike of Kafir. Secondly I want to portray him has a pervert and as desiring incestuous sexual contact with his daughter as a way to degrade and insult him. This is sophisticated way of insulting/degrading the Shaytan without me actually directly insulting/degrading him. And without letting my hate of him out the bag in a obvious way. (iv) This is what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is doing in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). His objective is to bring readers love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to level of an ordinary human being so his Shaytani version of ‘Tawheed’ isn’t challenged.

6.1 - Demonstrating Why, Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala, Is Insulting- 02:

Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say: “…Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/to-him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning: I will one day die (and) integrate into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 81, Urdu] In contrast to lie which Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tell; it is recorded in Ahadith that bodies of Prophets do not decompose, decay, disintegrate, integrate as dust in to dust: “The people asked: Messenger of Allah, how can it be that our blessings will be submitted to you while your body is decayed? He replied: Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B3, H1042, here.] Why would Shaykh Dehalvi make Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) utter a lie and say something against what is recorded in authentic Ahadith? Linguistically the words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used, mar kar mitti mein milnay, are used to degrade and insult especially even more when words uttered have no relevance to actuality. How so? Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi you're a BASTARD. That’s how so! When a statement has no truth to it and it is a slander, and it is; lowering, belittling, challenging/negating integrity - like Dhil Khuwaisira did, or piety, or a merit than it is insult, disrespect, and slander. IF he was indeed was a BASTARD as I wrote than it would not be insult, or disrespect, or slander. Hence saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) died, or making him say, he decomposed, disintegrated, integrated into dust as dust is insult and disrespect.

6.2 - Demonstrating Why Words, Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala, Is Insulting - 03:

(i) In context of a punch-up. Amr: Jabr ab tum mar kar mitti mein milnay walay ho. Meaning: Jabr you are about to die and mix within dust. Comment: This is an idiomatic reference to impending humiliation Jabr will have to face after getting knocked-out unconscious. Here literal death wasn’t meant. Similarly Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and the world knew/knows the bodies of Prophets including Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not and will not decompose. Hence his use of these words linguistically are idiomatic usage denoting insult/disrespect as they were in case of Amr. (ii) Jabr: Tum kia samjay, mein aaj din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon? Nahin, aaj tum mitti mein milo gay. Meaning: What did you understand/think, today I will die and mix with dust? No! Today you will mingle with dust. Comment: Again Jabr retaliated saying that Amr was of opinion that Jabr will get knocked-out and get humiliated but Jabr believes it will be Amr who will get shamed and humiliated. (iii) When the words mitti mein milna/milnay and its other variations are used but do not reflect the ground reality than they are used idiomatically and to degrade/Tazleel. And their usage by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi also denotes insult, humiliation, and degradation of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

I don't care about you becoming Barelwi and I am not taking the bait. Why do you think IF i successfully refute, or IF i fail to refute anything you posted in Urdu - would mean what Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote is not disrespectful and insulting?

You're just stuck on usage of words aisa and jaisa. You think IF you can bring a statement which has these words some how Shaykh Thanvi's statement will be purified and justified. You're wrong, aisa itself is not an issue, nor is jaisa/taisa/waisa/kaisa. Aisa has been used in context of denial of Takhsees. Denial of speciality n superiority of prophet n his Ghayb when compared to creatures mentioned:

“If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

IF one denies Takhsees/speciality as is in the case of this statement than on what basis is he denying superiority n speciality? Equality! One guy can count to ten and other guy can count to ten both are equals hence one has no superiority n speciality over the other. So I would say, if Ali can count to ten and Thanvi can count to ten than what is so unique about Thanvi because Ali also can count to ten. You realize I am denying speciality and Shaykh Thanvis uniquness on basis of equality. Similarly when Shaykh Thanvi writes and is denying superiority of prophet n denying speciality n uniqueness of prophetic Ghayb over the creatures he has mentioned: "... if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because ..."  Since denial can only be on basis of equality or inferiority therefore aisa (like-this) has been used to denote equality and aisa is of Tashbeeh/comparision. Because without comparing Prophet with the creatures he mentioned how can he say one is not better over the other. There has to be Tashbeeh/comparision for him to make conclusion that prophet has no Takhsees and word aisa i.e. like-this is used in meaning of comparision typically in Urdu and here too as demonstrated it is used in meaning of comparision. How can one say so n so is like-this n prophet is no better than these ...without insulting prophet? 

I am 43 years of age. The days of I jumping to meet challenges and trying to win converts for my sect and WINNING debates and eagerness to get into shouting matches are long past me. Put your self before sect and Mullahs representing your sect. Dont let love of them get in the way of love and respect of prophet peace be upon him. I will make Dua for you.

I have written extensively over this and you can read those articles below. I strongly advise you to study this dispute on basis of what is good for your here-after and not I WILL BECOME BARELWI ... I am not here to win converts FOR BARELWIS. I have concern for hearafter of Muslims and Muslims who have concern about their own hereafter. IF you think this is BARELWI vs DEOBANDI ... MY SECT VS YOUR SECT ... opressor vs opressed ... you're looking at the issue wrongly. Make it issue for your hereafter and issue of pleasing Allah, issue of following straight path.

Detailed Explanation Of Article: Understanding Ahlus Sunnah’s Two Definitions Of Innovations.

Introduction:

Those who read matters controversial between various Islamic sects have likely encountered term Biddah used to demonize another sect of Muslims. Truth is that many readers would not be aware the meaning of word Biddah, and even if they are aware, it would be translation, innovation. It’s very rare that causal readers would know the exact legal meaning of this term. Even those familiar with legal meaning they would be arguing whose version of definition is correct and truly reflects teaching of Prophet (peace be upon him) found in Ahadith. This article will present two definitions of innovations each with its own supporting evidence and explanation. My sole objective is to educate Muslims about two differing definition and demonstrate that both produce an agreed ruling. This article is a further explanation of article already written, here.

0.0 - Definition Purposed By Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali:

Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (may Allah have mercy on him) purposed following definition which Salafis claim to be judging matters not explicitly mentioned in Quran/Sunnah:

“Regarding the Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) saying: ‘Beware of newly introduced matters, for every innovation is a straying’ It is a warning to the community against following innovated new matters. He emphasised that with his words, ‘... every innovation is a straying.’ What is meant by innovation are those things which are newly introduced having no source in the Sharee’ah to prove them. As for whatever has a source in the Sharee’ah thereby proving it, then it is not an innovation in the Shar'ri sense, even though it might linguistically be an innovation. There is in Saheeh Muslim from Jaabir that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to say in his khutbah: ‘The best discourse is the Book of Allah, and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad, and the worst of affairs are those which are newly introduced, for every innovation is an error.’ So his saying, ‘Every innovation is a straying ...’ is one of the examples of concise and yet comprehensive speech which omits nothing, and it is one of the tremendous principles of the religion, closely resembling: ‘Whoever introduces into this affair of ours that which is not of it, then it is rejected.’” [Ref: Jami ul-Uloom wal-Hikam, Hadith20, by Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali]

Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (may Allah have mercy on him) definition is source of definition which I was taught during my association with members of Ahle Hadith sect. The only difference between what Shaykh purposed and what I was taught by members of Ahle Hadith Salafi sect was of expression and some criteria’s which produced contradictory rulings to what Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition produced. The expression of definition accorded with teaching of Shaykh (rahimullah) but the principles on basis of which innovation was judged were contradictory. I will not focus on distortion of Khawarij but what Shaykh (rahimullah) wrote.

0.1 – Evidence Of Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s Definition:

Primary source for Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (may Allah have mercy on him) understanding of innovation is three Ahadith of Prophet (peace be upon him). The first and the foremost is following saying of Prophet (peace be upon him) recorded in Sahih Muslim:

“And the most evil affairs are the innovations; and every innovation is misguidance." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885]

Following Hadith is also part and parcel of subject and definition of innovation:

"Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: One who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861]

Exactly same Hadith is translated, or you can say explained, or to coin a new term transplained - explanation of Hadith is part of translation as in the following:

“… 'If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected.'" [Ref: Muslim, B49, H861, here.] “He who innovates things in our affairs for which there is no valid (reason) (commits sin) and these are to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266, here.]

Transplanation of this Hadith is based on commentary, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari which was authored by Shaykh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (may Allah have mercy on him). On subject of what is a rejected innovation another Hadith records:

“A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: ‘He who acted any action not from our affair that is rejected.’” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267]

Following is transplanation of same Hadith:

“A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: He who did any act for which there is no sanction from our behalf, that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267, here.]

1.0 - Basic Definition Of Innovation:

Fundamental: Any action/belief without Asal from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is an innovation [in Shar’ri sense].

1.1 - Expanded Definition Of Innovation:

Expanded: Any action/belief without explicit or implicit Asal from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is an innovation [in Shar’ri sense].

1.3 - Two Complimentary Principles Of Innovation:

(i) Introducing a matter into Islam which is not of it is rejected. (ii) Engaging in any action not from Islam it is rejected.

2.0 - The Word Asal And The Types Of Asal:

To correctly understanding the definitions of innovation it is important to understand meaning of word Asal. The word Asal in Urdu means, foundation, root, start, derivative, and reality. Apart from the last all other meanings can be employed in this definition of innovation. In some articles I have employed term ‘evidential support’ to mean Asal. As mentioned earlier I had learnt definition of innovation from member of Khariji sect called Ahle Hadith. And my brain-washer did not specify that Asal is of two types, explicit/implicit, and I did not ask. Based on evidential demands by these Khawarij in debates and discussions with members of Ahlus Sunnah I conclude Asal is NOT in sense of implicit evidence but Asal in meaning of explicit foundation. Anyone who encounters them in a discussion, lends them an ear will be aware; Khawarij demand explicit evidence from Quran and Sunnah for innovated practices like Mawlid. They say, show us proof Prophet (peace be upon him) engaged in this practice or his companions. This indicates in their understanding permissibility depends upon a practice being Sunnah of Prophet (peace be upon him) and if it is not so then it is an innovation. I employed same definition while discussing with Najdi Kharijis popularly known as Salafis and they did not object to the definition either. It is a sect which originated in Najd in middle of 1750’s. And like the Ahle Hadith they too opposed commemoration and celebration of Mawlid. This establishes that like Ahle Hadith the Salafis too have incorporated principles which were not originally part of Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (may Allah have mercy on him) because Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) deemed celebration of Mawlid as permissible. Judging Mawlid without added Salafi baggage conclusion one arrives is; Mawlid is not an innovation in sense of Shari’ah but only in linguistic sense. Thus it is permissible and a reward-worthy act.

2.1 - Two Types Of Asal, Explicit And Implicit And Justification:

As a former Salafi, or accurately Halafi (combination of Hanafi Salafi), I did spend time contemplating if Asal root/foundation should be divided into categories of (i) explicit and (ii) implicit. And my understanding is that any innovated matter whose components have root in Quran/Sunnah but innovation was not explicitly instructed by Prophet (peace be upon him), nor has been acted by him is permissible because components it is composed of are from Sunnah. Sahih of Imam Bukhari is an innovation in linguistic sense but it is not innovation in Shar’ri sense because the components it is made up of are prophetic Sunnahs. There is no explicit evidence in Quran, or Sunnah where Allah (be He glorified), or Messenger (peace be upon him) said read Bukhari, or any other book of Hadith for that matter. There is evidence that companions compiled Ahadith as their own collections during the life of Prophet (peace be upon him) and he permitted it. And Bukhari and other books of Ahadith derive from these sources as well as from orally transmitted Ahadith. Hence we can through Qiyas deduce it if was allowed for them it was allowed for him to compile collection of Ahadith and call it Bukhari, al-Jaami al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Musnad al-Mukhtasar … al-Hasil Sahih Bukhari has indirect/implicit evidence in support of it hence it is not [Shar’ri] innovation because the definition says: Any action/belief without Asal from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is an innovation [in Shar’ri sense]. Bukhari has Asal therefore it is not an innovation in Shar’ri sense of word. This leads to conclusion that there are two types of Asals: (i) explicit, (ii) implicit.

2.2 – When Innovation Is Innovation, When It Is Not In Shar’ri Sense Of Definition:

It is worthy pointing out Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (may Allah have mercy on him) above definition is Shar’ri definition of innovation and not linguistic. As such anything termed/categorized as innovation according to this definition; it is reprehensible, sinful, evil, and rejected type of innovation according to Jamhoor’s (majority’s) definition of innovation. In the main article, here, as an example suicide bombing termed ‘martyrdom mission’ was discussed and revealed that it would be termed as an innovation. Ruling regarding it was it is misguidance, rejected form of innovation, and it is leading to hellfire because it is composed of a Haram, for which there is no funeral prayers, no forgiveness, and an offense punished eternally in hell. In contrast if ‘martyrdom mission’ was fighting against an enemy where odds favored enemy immeasurably but the believers stood firm, did not retreat, and fought to their deaths. They would be counted amongst the martyrs. And if they retreat without being commanded by military leadership then take note what Allah (be He glorified and exalted) has said:

“O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing (in battle), do not turn to them your backs (in flight). And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving (as a strategy) for war or joining (another) company, has certainly returned with anger (upon him) from Allah, and his refuge is Hell - and wretched is the destination.” [Ref: 8:15/16]

In this context second version of ‘martyrdom mission’ is composed of an Islamic teaching hence it is reward-worthy and praiseworthy practice. Another example would suffice. Performing Taraweeh for entire month under leadership of a Qari in Masjid even though it is an innovation in linguistic sense but in light of above definition it is not an innovation in Shar’ri sense so it will not be termed as an innovation.

2.3 – Taraweeh Of Entire Month A Prophetic Sunnah, Or An Excellent Innovation:

Khawarij following Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (may Allah have mercy on him) definition of innovation argue it has Asal/root in Sunnah therefore Taraweeh of entire month … is classed a prophetic Sunnah. We say Taraweeh of three days as mentioned in Ahadith is a prophetic Sunnah. Extending its practice to entire month of Ramadhan is a Sunnah but not prophetic Sunnah, it is a good Sunnah introduced in Islam for which there is reward. In other words it is a praiseworthy innovation and Umar (Allah be pleased with him) said it is an excellent innovation: “On that, 'Umar remarked what an excellent innovation this is but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.” [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] It is permissible to engage in entire month of Taraweeh … because practice of it does not contradicts any prohibitive teaching of Islam and practice of Taraweeh is act of worship composed of prophetic Sunnah. The  result is Taraweeh is not innovation according to definition of Shaykh Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) because it has its origin is in Sunnah.

3.0 - Scholarly Precedent For Praiseworthy And Reprehensible Innovation:

Imam Nawavi (may Allah haver mercy on him) says:

“Innovation in the Law is the innovating of what did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah and is divided into excellent and bad. The Shaykh Abu Muhammad Abd al-Aziz  Ibn Abd al-Salam  (may Allah have mercy on him) said toward the end of his book, al-Qawa`id [al-Kubra]: “Innovation is divided into ‘obligatory’ (wajiba), ‘forbidden’s (muh.arrama), ‘recommended’s (manduba), ‘offensive’s (makruha), and ‘indifferent’s (mubaha). The way [to discriminate] in this is that the innovation be examined in the light of the regulations of the Law (qawa`id al-shari`a).If it falls under the regulations of obligatoriness (ijab) then it is obligatory; under the regulations of prohibitiveness (tah.rim) then it is prohibited; recommendability, then recommended; offensiveness, then offensive; indifference, then indifferent.”

He also recorded following as Imam Shafi’s (may Allah have mercy on him) understanding of innovation:

“The newly innovated matters are of two kinds. [Innovation] that which goes against the teaching of book of Allah, the Sunnah of Messenger (peace be upon him), or his tradition, or the consencus of Muslim Ummah is called misguided innovation. The second kind is an innovation that is praiseworthy, about which there is no disapproval from any of the scholars and this is not a blameworthy. Omar (Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the Taraweeh prayer that is is an excellent innovation. Meaning it did not exist during the era of the Prophet (peace be upon him) but it does not contradict anything that did exist [in Quran and Sunnah].” [Ref: Tahdheeb al-Asma wal-Lughat, Vol3, page 22/23, here.]

Imam Shafi’s (rahimullah) position is also mentioned in another classical era book:

“It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl who had it narrated to him from Abul-Abbas Al-Asam who said Rabi’ ibn Sulayman narrated to us from Imam ash-Shafi’i that he said: “Innovated matters in religion (min Al-Umur) are of two kinds: 1) Whatever is innovated and contravenes the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma (consensus) – then that is an innovation of misguidance. 2) Whatever is innovated of [any and all good things [min al-khayr] and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy.  And ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadan: ‘ni’matu bida’at hadhihi‘ what a good innovation this is’ meaning it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.” [Ref: Manaqib al-Imam al-Shafi, Vol1, Pages468/469, here.]

Imam Badr al-Deen al-Ayni al-Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him), died 856 divided innovation into two categories:

“Innovation is a newly innovated matter that did not exist at the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). It is of two types: (i) If it is from category which is deemed as good according to islam then it is called praiseworthy innovation. (ii) If on other hand it falls in a class that is deemed blameworthy by Islam then it is called blameworthy innovation.” [Ref: Umdat ul-Qari Sharh Sahih ul-Bukhari, Vol 11, page 120, here.]

There are many other Imams who have divided innovation into reprehensible and praiseworthy and then they further divided each category into subdivisions.

3.1 – Textual Support For Praiseworthy Categorization Of Innovation:

Word Sunnah has been employed in meaning of innovation in following Hadith because son of Adam (peace be upon him) was first to start Sunnah of murder:

"Whenever a person is murdered unjustly, there is a share from the burden of the crime on the first son of Adam for he was the first to start the Sunnah (tradition) of murdering." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H552]

And in following Hadith Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed the believers to follow his Sunnahs and innovative Sunnahs introduced by rightly Caliphs:

“I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] Prophet (peace be upon him) said one who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam he and those who act on this Sunnah will be rewarded equally: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Sunnahs of Prophet (peace be upon him) are already part of Islam. Engaging in prophetic Sunnahs and encouraging others to act on them is not introducing them into Islam hence the Hadith does not refer to prophetic Sunnahs. An innovation is not part of Islam and to introduce a Sunnah into Islam which is not already part of it gives meaning of an innovation. And in this light the Hadith says there is reward for innovated good Sunnahs. This meaning is further substantiated by two Ahadith in which the words are bit different but meaning is same: “The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever sets a good precedent in Islam, he will have the reward for that, and the reward of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] "Jarir b. 'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The servant does not introduce سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً  (righteous Sunnah) which is followed after him. The rest of the hadith is the same." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6468] “Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever starts a سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ (good Sunnah) which is followed, then for him is a reward, and the likes of their rewards of whoever follows him, there being nothing diminished from their rewards." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2675] Also Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) also is on record for saying practice of Taraweeh for entire month of Ramadhan is an excellent innovation: “On that, 'Umar remarked نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ  (i.e. what an excellent innovation this is) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.” [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] His son Abdullah Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) also shared same understanding about innovation and said said: “Narrated Mujahid: Urwa bin Az-Zubair and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] “Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us, Jarir narrated, al-Hakim bin A'raj narrated; I asked Muhammad about Salat ad-Duha, while he was sitting near the house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He said: It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, H3, here.] "Narrated Muamar, narrated al-Zuhri, narrated (Ibn Umar’s son) Sa'lim, (that his father) Ibn Umar said: At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd ar-Razzaq, Book Of Salat (No.2), Chapter al-Duha, H4868] Statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) itself is evidence that companions introduced many innovations but Salat ad-Duha was beloved to him. All this evidence proves Prophet (peace be upon him) taught there is reward for good innovations and companions of Prophet (peace be upon him) also shared this understanding. As well as introduced many innovations after him.

3.2 – Evidential Support For Reprehensible Classification Of Innovation:

Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “And he would join his forefinger and middle finger; and would further say: ‘The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is error.’" [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885, here.] Whenever, every/all, is used it is always limited by some something. When we say, Ali ate all the food. Ali ate every bit of food. In these two sentences all/every can is limited to what was on his plate, or in his house, but we will not understand the words to mean Ali ate all the food on world. In short every is limited by context and capability of person. Even if it is used in general sense it always is limited by said/unsaid factor.  The generality of every is restricted to a particular type of innovation and not absolutely every. If every was in its absolute meaning, which includes everything, and excludes nothing, then Books of Ahadith likes of Bukhari/Muslim, addition of Harakaat/Ijam, numbering of Surahs/Ayaat, Taraweeh as we practice it and many more practices are evil affairs and misguided innovation. Yet none has ever issued such judgment about these. This establishes that every is not absolutely all-inclusive but it has exceptions. Following Ahadith are proof of exceptions: “Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: ‘If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861, here] “A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: He who did any act for which there is no sanction from our behalf, that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267, here.] Hadith of every innovation is about those innovated matters/acts which have no basis in Quran/Sunnah thus bound to be rejected. These rejected innovations are termed as evil innovations which do not please Allah (the glorified the high) and Prophet (peace be upon him😞 "And whoever introduces a بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ  (erroneous innovation) with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] And in another Hadith these rejected/evil innovations which do not please Allah (the glorified the high) and Prophet (peace be upon him) are said to be innovative evil Sunnahs introduced in Islam: “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] In short innovations which are composed of acts/matters which have no proof from Quran/Sunnah are rejected type of innovations and these innovations in other Ahadith are termed as, evil Sunnahs in Islam, evil innovations. And about these type of innovations Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “And the most evil affairs are their innovations and every innovation is error.’" [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885, here.] Following are two interpretations of this Hadith in light of mentioned evidences: (i) “And the most evil affairs are their innovations (which are composed of matters/acts not sanctioned in Quran/Sunnah) and every (such) innovation is error." (ii) “And the most evil affairs are their (evil) innovations (and evil Sunnahs) and every (evil) innovation (and Sunnah which does not pleasing Allah/Messenger) is error.”

4.0 - Fundamental Definition Of Reprehensible Innovation:

Fundamental: Any action/belief without Asal from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is a reprehensible innovation.

4.1 - Expanded Definition Of Reprehensible Innovation:

Expanded: Any action/belief without direct/explicit, or indirect/implicit evidence from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is a reprehensible innovation.

4.2 - Understanding Ahadith Of Rejected Innovation And Actions:

(ii) Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Man ahdatha fi amrina haza ma laysa fihi fahuwa raddun.” And these words have been literally translated as:“One who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] This literal reading is transplained in following places: “… 'If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected.'" [Ref: Muslim, B49, H861, here.] “He who innovates things in our affairs for which there is no valid (reason) (commits sin) and these are to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266, here.] (ii) Previous Hadith have been explained by following words of Prophet (peace be upon him😞 “Man amila amalan laysa alayhi amrina fahuwa raddun.” Literal translation of this Hadith is: “A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: ‘He who acted any action not from our affair that is rejected.’” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] Transplanation of same is as follows: “A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: He who did any act for which there is no sanction from our behalf, that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267, here.] (iii) Note these differing translations have their basis in Shuruhaat/explanations of scholars as such each by itself is a principle on to itself. (iv) Best of interpretation of Hadith is to explain it with help of another Hadith. And these two Ahadith explain each other. Easiest way to correctly understand each Hadith is to insert missing info of one in other: “One who innovates something [such as an action] in this matter (i.e. Islam) of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] “A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: ‘He who acted any [innovated] action not from our affair (i.e. Islam) that is rejected.’” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267]

4.3 - Principles Regarding Reprehensible Innovation:

Basic Reject Innovation Principle: An innovation composed of actions/practices from outside of religion of Islam is rejected.

4.4 - Explanation Of Reprehensible Innovation Principle:

Any innovation which is composed of acts of worship, charity, and general good which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not legislate in religion of Islam to be worship, charity, and goodness that innovation is rejected because it is reprehensible innovation. If one deems meditation as an act of worship and decides to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by engaging in meditation then his innovated act of worship and his worship both are rejected in Islam. To worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) we must worship Him through what He and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legislated.

5.0 – Fundamental Definition Of Praiseworthy Innovation:

Fundamental: Any action/belief with Asal from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is a praiseworthy innovation.

5.1 – Expanded Definition Of Praiseworthy Innovation:

Detailed: Any action/belief with explicit/direct, or implicit/indirect evidence from the Qur'an or Sunnah such is a praiseworthy innovation.

5.2 - Three Complimentary Principles Of Praise Innovation:

Three principles: (i) Whoever introduces a good Biddah/Sunnah with which Allah and His Messenger is pleased then he shall receive good-deeds. (ii) One who innovates something in this matter of ours (and) that (innovation) is (composed) of it (Sunnah, or Islam) will have it accepted and rewarded. (iii) He who acted on any (innovated) action from our affair (of Islam) that (innovated action/innovation) is accepted and rewarded.

5.3 - Rationale For Praiseworthy Innovation Determining Principles:

(i) To help us determine what is reprehensible/rejected type of innovations Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) left us two principles: “One who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] “‘He who acted any action not from our affair that is rejected.’” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] Alternative translation of these Ahadith is: “He who innovates things in our affairs for which there is no valid (reason) (commits sin) and these are to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266, here.] “A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: He who did any act for which there is no sanction from our behalf, that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267, here.] (ii) "And whoever introduces a بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ  (erroneous innovation) with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] (iii) And as far as I am aware there is no principle on basis of which we can determine what is innovated good Sunnah (i.e. praiseworthy innovation). Yet there is no such clear/explicit guidance in regards to innovated good Sunnahs. And after thinking over the subject I realized three quoted Ahadith are implicit evidence for them. (iv) Readers should note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Amr introduces a good innovation when he introduces a good Sunnah in Islam because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not make Amr’s introduced Sunnah part of Islam before Amr did. From this Hadith we know there is reward for one who introduces and one who acts on innovated good Sunnahs which are later made part of [Ijtihadi] Islam. And therefore principles I present themselves are good Sunnahs derived from prophetic Qawli Sunnahs referenced in this article.

6.0 - Praiseworthy And Reprehensible Innovations Subdivided:

Mainstream Islamic scholarship categorizes innovation as: (i) Shar’ri Innovation. Shar’ri innovation is divided into two categories: (i) Hasanah (praiseworthy), (ii) Dhalalah (reprehensible). Both of these are further divided into two categories each: (i) Amali (actions), (ii) Itiqadi (beliefs). Praiseworthy innovation of action is divided into three categories: (i) Jaiz (permissible), (ii) Mustahab (liked, approved), (iii) Wajib (obligatory). Reprehensible innovation in actions is divided into two categories: (i) Makhruh (disliked), (ii) Haram (forbidden). Makruh innovation is divided by two categories: (i) Tahrimi (i.e. Forbiddenish), extremely undesirable nearing Haram and sinful. (ii) Tanzihi (i.e. blameless), undesirable but not sinful. Innovated evil belief is divided into three categories: (i) Zindiqiyyah (heretical), (ii) Kufr (disbelief), (iii) Shirk (polytheistic).

6.1 – Two Gateways Allowing Innovated Good Sunnahs In Islam:

(i) Jaiz (permissible) -: Anything innovated that is not explicitly, or composed of what prohibited by Shari’ah and one engages in it without intending to earn reward, or fearing punishment. Evidence for this is 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] Meaning of pardoned is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not hold people accountable for engaging in it therefore it is allowed. And this meaning is elaborated in another Hadith: “Then Allah sent His Prophet and sent down His Book, marking some things lawful and others unlawful; so what He made lawful is lawful, what he made unlawful is unlawful, and what he said nothing about is allowable. And he recited: ‘Say, O Prophet! I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to eat except carrion, running blood, swine which is impure or a sinful offering in the name of any other than Allah ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B27, H3791, here.] Generally principle is what the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw taking place, or came to know about it, and he did not prohibit it then it was allowed. And same rule applies to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), nor the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would remain silent on what was against teaching of Islam. (ii) Mustahab (liked, approved) -: Mustahab is an innovated practice which is not explicitly prohibited in Kitab and Sunnah. Majority of public including scholarship deems it reward-worthy and it is practiced with intention of pleasing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and earning reward. Evidence for this is following Hadith and others: “… and He found that the hearts of his companions were the best among them. Thus, He made them into the ministers of His Prophet, fighting for the sake of His religion. And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah.” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] Further more Ahadith in which Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed to follow the majority of Ummah, the Jammah in disputes because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not unite majority of Ummah upon misguidance are also proof of this. When Jamhoor/majority of scholarship deems a practice good/reward-worthy then it is because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deemed it so.

7.0 - In This Version Every Innovation Is Shar’ri Innovation:

According to this version of definition of innovation and in understanding of over-whelming majority of Islamic scholarship every/any innovation is Shar’ri innovation. This means every innovation be it computer, keyboard, software, chicken Biryani, Korma, tooth brush and paste, modern weapons, and everything else is not linguistic innovation but Shar’ri innovation. And reason for this is because everything has to be looked through lens of Islamic rules/principles to determine if its use by a Muslim is permissible/impermissible etc. Some say nothing but what was revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Islam and nothing can be made part of it and Shari’ah after revelation has ceased. And I say to them indeed nothing can be made part of revealed Islam because revelation has ceased and there is no Prophet after last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Despite this matters can be made part of Ijtihadi Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told: "Whenever a person is murdered unjustly, there is a share from the burden of the crime on the first son of Adam for he was the first to start the Sunnah (tradition) of murdering." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H552] Son of Adam (alayhis salam) introduced an evil innovation, an evil Sunnah and he incurs burden of sin for every unjust murder. And this is according to following principle: “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 being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] He did not intend to make part of it Islam but his evil action by default is judged as if he made it part of Islam. Similarly every good innovated practice by default becomes part Islam and Shariah: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] This establishes that evil/good actions performed with/without intention of making it part of Islam/Shari’ah are by default part of Shari’ah. And Imam Shafi (rahimullah) is on record for saying the same in regards to declaring something good: ‘Whosoever declares something good has made it part of the Sharee’ah.’ [Ref: Al-Risalah, Page 507, by Imam al-Shafi] al-Hasil when anything innovated is declared as, believed as, and engaged in and it is classed as: Haram, Halal, Mubah, Makruh,Wajib, Mustahab, good, evil, reward-worthy, major/minor; sin, Shirk, Kufr then it has been made part of Islam and therefore Shari’ah, by default.

Conclusion:

Both definitions are equally valid in light of their evidences and disagreement over definition is valid form of disagreement in Ijtihad. There is no blame upon anyone who employs anyone of these two and judges matters of religion. Blame is upon every person who distorts and disbelieves in Ahadith where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told of reward for one introducing innovated praiseworthy Sunnah in Islam. Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition of innovation simply classifies innovated good Sunnahs as non-Biddah practices. And if it is classed as Biddah it is said to be Biddah in linguistic sense and not in Shar’ri sense of his definition. In his definition no innovation is prohibited/sinful until it is a Shar’ri innovation so modern way of commemorating Mawlid would be an innovation in linguistic sense but not in Shar’ri sense therefore permissible. In understanding of great majority, the Jammah’s, good Sunnah introduced in Islam is an innovation but a good/praiseworthy innovation. Hence modern way of celebrating Mawlid would be judged as a good innovation and permissible which brings reward for all participants. Khawarij of Najd claim they judge by Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition of innovation and they are liars. They are deceiving Muslims and themselves. Instead they on basis of their Khariji beliefs and methodology have incorporated principles, beliefs, teachings, understandings into Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition which were not part of his definition and which have no basis in Quran/Ahadith. As a consequence they oppose, prohibit and send people to hellfire for what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) allowed and told of reward in paradise. They have disbelieved in the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his message: He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Ghunya mein Ahle Hadith bil muqabil Ahle Ra'ee heh ... yehni joh aqli goray dora kar Quran ko samajtay hen un kay khilaaf Ahle Hadith yehni Ahle Sunnat.

Aik zamana thah jab philosophy mantiq waghayra kay zor say logoon ko Quran ko samajna shoroon keeya aur inneeh ko Sunnat/Hadith par tarjeeh denay lagay. yahan par ghayr muqallid Wahhabi ahle hadith murad nahin balkay woh murad hen jo Sunnat par chaltay thay. aur woh sab hi muqallid aur imamoon ko follow kartay thay.

Ghayr muqallidiyat toh 150/200 saal purani heh. Wahhabiyun nay Ahle Hadith ka title apna leeya jistera mein aik Jammat e Sahaba bana loon Sahabi ka lakab na-haq apna upoor laga loon aur phir jitni hi Sahaba ki shaan mein Hadith hen apnay upar aur meray peechay chalnay waloon par fit karna shoroon ho jahoon. Toh aisa karnay say mein aur peray gumra perokar Sahabiat kay darjay par faiz hen? Nahin nah! Is'see tera Wahhabiyun ka Ahle Hadith ka title apna lenay say woh Ahle Hadith nahin.

Ibn Taymiyyah aik khalas Khariji khalis shaytan thah jissay Tawheed aur Shirk kia hen aur kin bunyadaat qaim aur nafi hoteen hen un ka ilm nahin thah. Is Shaytan nay Istighathah ko Shirk tehraya, ahle kalma ki Takfir ki, sirf Tawheed aur shirk ka ilm nah honay ki waja say. 

Banda ki yahi samaj heh, jissay Tawheed aur Shirk ka pata nahin Kafir heh.  Bilkhasoos wo jo auroon ko Kafir kahay aur khud ilmi okaat yeh ho keh sahih Taheed aur Shirk ka bi pata nah ho. Lehaza mein nay ibn Taymiyyah aur jo is ki taleem par chalay ahle kufr aur ibn taymiyyah ko Kafir hi samajta hoon.

Aisay Kafir ko  Shaykh ul Islam likhna jaiz nahin. Agar kafir nahin toh gumra zeroor heh. Balkeh Khariji yaqeenan heh. Keun kay Musalman Ilahiyyah/rububiiyah kay izhar par Shirk ka hukm jari kartay hen. Magr kharijiyun nay sift Hakim ki bunyad par Hazrat Ali aur ashab ko Shirk ka ilzam deeya. Aur kaha Allah Hakim heh tum nay mkhlooq ko Hakim maan kar Shirk keeya. Yehni jistera baghayra  ilahiyyah/rububiyya kay ibn taymiyyah aur wahhabi Shirk ka ilzam detay hen issi tara Kharijiyun nay deeya. Sabat huwa Ibn Taymiiyah fehm Tawheed/shirk mein Kharijiyun jaisa thah. Aur yahi fehm sab Kharijiyun ko apas mein jorta heh.  Aur Khariji  Kafir hen. 

There is no information about who will be teaching n what will be taught. Typically Deobandis omit details which will allow people to identify who they are. Beware. 

Dua ki tara haath utha kar kissi wali ya Nabi say madad mangna haram nahin toh makrooh tahrimi zeroor heh. Yehni Haram kay itni qareeb heh kay gunna zeroor hoga. 

Agar ilah/mabood manh hath utha kar kuch manga toh ibadat lazam hogi. Yeh kufr akbar heh aur Islam say kharij karti heh. Makhloq wasteh ilah/mabood kay nazria qaim karnay ki bunyad par Shirk akbar bi lazam ahay ga aur shirk akbar islam say kharij karta heh. 

Mannat, ka tareeka heh, ya Allah agar tooh nay beta ata keeya toh mein 10  ghareebon ko  makan bana doon ga ... Waghayra ... Mannat waliyun say nahin mangi jati ... 

Istighathah is to seek help of either directly from soul of a Nabi/Wali, as in, o Wali give me this, or o wali make duaon my behalf to Allah so Allah gives me this. Or indirectly, as in, O Allah help me through ur this Nabi/wali.

Dua which is Ibadah is one which is coupled with belief of Ilahiyyah/mabudiyyah n niyyah of ibadah. In other words dua which is directed to a being about whom the invoker believes he is my ilah n has intention of ibadah while invoking ie making dua, such dua is worship. 

Bhar do joli meri, is just a naat, i have not ever heard anyone do this, but if someone does, he does nothing wrong because prophet said Allah is giver n i am distributor. Sahih bukhari ki Hadith heh. Jis ko jo mila rasoolallah kay waseeleh say mila, deeya Allah nay taqseem keeya rasoolallah nay. 

I have not ever heard or seen anyone claiming to be Sunni and behave as youre saying. 

5 hours ago, wasim raza said:

https://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/9865-قرآن-کے-ترجمے-میں-احمد-رضا-خان-بریلوی-کی-طرف-سے-کی-گئی-تحریف-کے-واضح-ثبوت/

Mashallah. Bhot umda mawad heh. Moteram Khalil Rana nay bhot bhot umda material likha heh.

Abdullah bhai is link mein joh mawad Moteram Khalil Rana sahib nay likha heh us ko zeroor paren.

On 6/22/2023 at 7:45 AM, عبدالله قادرى said:

Munkireen surah Namal ki ayat 62 naal karte hain

بلکہ وہ کون ہے جو بے قرار شخص کی دعا قبول فرماتا ہے جب وہ اسے پکارے اور تکلیف دور فرماتا ہے اور تمہیں زمین میں(پہلے لوگوں کا) وارث و جانشین بناتا ہے؟ کیا اللہ کے ساتھ کوئی (اور بھی) معبود ہے؟ تم لوگ بہت ہی کم نصیحت قبول کرتے ہو

Unka kehna yeh hai ki
1)Gayiibana Madad ke liye kisi ko pukarna use Ma'abood banana hai
2) Hadees e Paak mein bhi aaya hai ke Dua Ibaadat hai
Forum par koi sahab mujhe in aitrazaat ke jawabaat Tafseel se inayat farmayein badii Meharbaani hogi
JazakAllah

Salam alaykum,

"2) Hadees e Paak mein bhi aaya hai ke Dua Ibaadat hai"

Part 1 - Sab say pehlay, Hadith e Dua Ibadat heh is par thori wazahat.

Allah kay Nabi sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam ka farman heh, Dua Ibadat heh:

“An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.]

Pehlay is Hadith nay zahir par thora bayan.

Is Hadith ka yeh mana nahin kay har pukar/dua Ibadat heh. Agar Wahhabi kehta heh kay is Hadith ki bunyad par har dua ibadat heh toh phir is ayaat ka kia banay ga:

“(Remember) when you (fled and) climbed (the mountain) without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind. So Allah repaid you with distress upon distress ...” [Ref: 3:153]

Yehni Allah kay Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) tum ko pukar/dua rahay thay. Yahan lafz joh istimal huwa heh dua ka hi makhaz heh. Agay wali ayaat mein heh kay Allah sahaba ko RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko pukarnay/dua ka tareeka bata raha heh:

“Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.” [Ref: 24:63]

RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko pukaro toh aisa waisay na pukaro. Abh agar har jaga dua lafz ahay toh ibadat mana leeya jahay toh phir kia nateeja nikalta heh? Yahi kay RasoolAllah Sahabah ko ibadat mein pukara kartay thay aur Sahabah RasoolAllah ki ibadat mein pukara kartay thay.

Asal mein har woh Dua/pukar jis mein zuban say iqrar aur dil say tasdeeq karda Ilah/Khuda ko pukara jahay aur niyat ibadat ho to ibadat heh. Warna har aisi pukar ibadat nahin, i) jis mein khuda ko pukara nah jahay, ii) aur niyat ibadat nah ho. In do upar wali ayaat par in do asooloon ka itlaq kar lenh. Kia Sahabah RasoolAllah ko khuda/ilah man kar aur niyat ibadat say pukara kartay thay? Nahin! Kia RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) Sahabah ko khuda aur ibadat ki niyat say pukar rahay thay? Nahin! Lehaza har pukar/dua Ibadat nahin sirf wohi heh jis mein aqeedah ilahiyyah ka iqrar/tasdeeq aur niyat ibadat ho.

Yahi asool har Ibadat par fit atay hen. Namaz peren magr Allah ta'ala ko apna Ilah/khuda nah maneh balkay apni gali kay Gama jaisa aisa waisa samjen aur niyat ibadat bi nah ho sirf bandoon ko raazi karnay wasteh namaz kay tamam amaal keren to kia Allah ki ibadat hogi? Nahin! Keun kay HAR IBADAT wasteh aqeedah ilahiyyah aur niyat ibadat shart heh. Joh Allah ko Ilah maan kar aur niyat ibadat say Allah ko pukarta heh woh dua ibadat heh. Agar Hindu, Christian, Sikh apnay khudahoon ko ilah/khuda maan kar aur niyat ibadat say pukarta heh toh ibadat karta heh apnay khuda ki. Misaal tor par aik mulhid/atheist joh khuda kay wujud ka qail hi nahin agar woh Allah ko pukaray to Allah ki ibadat kar raha heh? Chalen aik aur misaal lenh, aik banda Allah ko toh manta heh magr namaz parta toh heh magr woh Allah ki ibadat ki naiyat nahin karta aur nah ibadat karna chahta heh balkay majboori mein bandoon saath kara heh, saray namaz kay amaal puray karta heh magr khiyaal mein jaan booj kar tv aur filmoon kay scenes kay mazay leh raha heh to kia ibadat/namaz pari us nay? Nahin nah! Keun kay niyat ibadat nahin thee.

Aik aur misaal lenh, Sajdah namaz mein Ibadat heh. Kia har sajdah ghair khuda ko ibadat heh? Allah ko ham Sajda kertay hen toh ibadat heh magr farishtay Adam ko sajda keren toh ibadat nahin. Kuen? Allah ko sajda Ilah/khuda maan kar aur ibadat ki niyat say is leyeh ibadat heh. Magr Adam alayhis salam ko Sajda keeya gaya magr baghayr ibadat ki niyat say aur baghayr khuda/ilah manay is leyeh ibadat nahin.

Hasil kalam, HAR IBADAT MEIN  AQEEDA ILAHIYYAH AUR NIYAT IBADAT LAZAM HEH. Agar donoon mein aik bi nah ho, ibadat nahin hoti. Yahan say wazia huwa kay wasila/istighathah ki pukaar ibadat nahin keun kay pukarnay wala pukaray janay walay ko nah khuda manta heh aur nah niyat ibadat karta heh.

Part 2 - Hadith Ka Sahih Mafoom:

Aik Hadith mein aya heh:

“Abdur-Rahman bin Ya'mar narrated that: Some people among the residents of Najd came to the Messenger of Allah while he was at Arafat. They were questioning him, so he ordered a caller to proclaim: "The Hajj is Arafah. Whoever came to Jam during the night, before the time of Fajr, then he has attended the Hajj. ” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B4, H889, here]

Dua Ibadat heh ki misl ilfaaz hen Hajj Arafat heh. Yehni Hajj Arafat ka qayam heh. Abh kaya sirf Hajj Arafat taq hi heh, safa marwa ka tawaf aur kaba ka tawaf hajj ka hissa nahin? Bilkul heh magr yahan par kehna muraad heh kay Hajj ka dill, Hajj ki asal, Hajj ki jarr, Hajj ka damagh, Hajj ka khaas markaz jis kay baghayr Hajj nahin woh Arafat ka qa

Hadith:

“An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.]

Is ka mana woh nahin joh aam tor par samja jata heh. Balkay is ka mana heh, kay Ibadat/namaz/waghayra kay amaal mein joh kalamaat paray jatay hen woh ibadat hen.  Yehni ibadat ka dill/damagh/asal kalamat e tayyibaat hen jin ko Allah ki hamd aur Allah ko pukara jata heh. Dua Ibadat heh, is Hadith ki aur yahi mafoom ki wazahat aik aur Hadith mein heh:

“Anas bin Malik narrated that the Prophet said: ‘The supplication is the essence of worship.’” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3371, here.]

To maloom huwa kay is Hadith ka mana hi wo nahin jo Wahhabi/Deobandi hazraat aam tor par letay hen. Dua ibadat heh, ka asal mana heh, Ibadat ka dil/asal dua heh aur woh bi har woh Dua jis mein manay huway ilah/khuda ko pukara jahay aur niyat ibadat ho  tab ja kar ibadat hoti heh warna nahin. Mein misalen pesh kar aya peechay.

Part 3 - Surah Naml Ayat 61  ki Tafsir:

بلکہ وہ کون ہے جو بے قرار شخص کی دعا قبول فرماتا ہے جب وہ اسے پکارے اور تکلیف دور فرماتا ہے اور تمہیں زمین میں(پہلے لوگوں کا) وارث و جانشین بناتا ہے؟ کیا اللہ کے ساتھ کوئی (اور بھی) معبود ہے؟ تم لوگ بہت ہی کم نصیحت قبول کرتے ہو

Surah Naml ki ayat 62/63 ko dekhyeh:

ھلا کس نے زمین کو قرار گاہ بنایا اور اس کے بیچ نہریں بنائیں اور اس کے لئے پہاڑ بنائے اور (کس نے) دو دریاؤں کے بیچ اوٹ بنائی (یہ سب کچھ خدا نے بنایا) تو کیا خدا کے ساتھ کوئی اور معبود/خدا بھی ہے؟ (ہرگز نہیں) بلکہ ان میں اکثر دانش نہیں رکھتے

ھلا کون بیقرار کی التجا قبول کرتا ہے۔ جب وہ اس سے دعا کرتا ہے اور (کون اس کی) تکلیف کو دور کرتا ہے اور (کون) تم کو زمین میں (اگلوں کا) جانشین بناتا ہے (یہ سب کچھ خدا کرتا ہے) تو کیا خدا کے ساتھ کوئی اور معبود/خدا بھی ہے (ہرگز نہیں مگر) تم بہت کم غور کرتے ہو

In donoon ayaatoon say wazia hota heh kay yeh Ayaat Mushrikeen e Makkah kay wasteh nazil huween theen keun kay woh Allah kay saath auron ko khuda mantay thay aur Allah ta'ala nay un kay khilaaf daleel qaim ki kay jab zameen asmanoon waghayra ka bananay wala Allah heh to us kay ilawa kohi aur khuda kesay ho sakta heh.

Abh Wahhabi nay aik wo ayaat joh Mushrikoon/kafiroon wasteh nazil huwi us ko Musalmanoon par chispan keeya aur is say yeh bazhir karna chaha kay ham Musalmanoon aur Mushrikeen kay darmiyaan kohi farq nahin. Is par aap ko yeh maloom hona chayeh kay Abdullah Ibn Umar radiallah ta'ala anhu ka farmaan heh kay khawarij sab say badtreen logh hen Allah ki makhlooq mein, keun, woh kafiroon wali ayaat musalmanoon par chispan kartay hen:

"And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Book 88, Book Apostates, Chapter 6:Killing al-Khawarij and Mulhideen, here, scribd here.]

Yad rahay kay Khariji tamam kay tamam KAFIR MURTAD hen aur Wahhabi bi asal aur asoolan KHARIJI hen lehaza in mein joh Wahhabiyat kay aqaid o nazriat aur asal o asool ko janta manta ho sab KAFIR hen. Bas ham sirf us ka lehaz keren gay jo la-ilmi u jahalat mein ya Wahhabi gar mein peda huway aur baap dada kay dekhaway par  bila tehqeeq tanqeeq Wahhabi tareeka namaz waghayra par amal kartay hen aur taqleedan Wahhabi hen aur nah woh kissi ko ilzam shirk detay hen bas apni keeyeh ja rahay hen. aisay ko hargiz kafir na tehraya jahay aur na mana jahay sirf gumra tasleem keeya jahay.

Part 4 - Wahhabi Asool Aur Bey-Daleel Mangarat Heh:

"Unka kehna yeh hai ki
1) Gayiibana Madad ke liye kisi ko pukarna use Ma'abood banana hai"

Jis Wahhabi nay yeh likha heh, us say kaha jahay, kay aaik Quran ki ayaat, aik Hadith pesh karo jis mein likha ho Ghaybana madad kay leyeh kissi ko pukarna us-say ma'bood/ilah/khuda banana hai.

Wahhabiat kay saray aisay asool mangarat hen. door say pukara toh ilah bana deeya, qareeb walay ko pukara toh ilah/mabood nahin banaya, murda ko pukara toh ussay mabood bana deeya, zinda ko pukara toh ussay mabood nahin banaya. Waghayra waghayra ... Qareeb walay ko pukara to maboob keun nahin banta? Allah Qareeb nahin sharag say. Agar door walay ko pukarnay say Mabood lazam ata heh toh phir Qareeb walay ko pukarnay say mabood keun nahin hota. Wesay Shirk ko Allah kay saath barabari heh, Qareeb honay mein, barabari sabat ho toh Shirk nahin. Quran mein toh Allah kay Qareeb honay ka zikr heh Door honay ka nahin. Yeh kia heh kay door/ghaybana say Maboodiat sabat kartay ho Qareebiat say bi to Maboodiat sabat karo. Nahin karo gay. is leyeh keun kay bey-iman ho. Waghayra waghayra ... aik idhar aya thah aisay hi mangarat asooloon kay saath, here. Agar baag kar nah jata toh ham kalmah parwa kar behijtay, pakka sacha musalman bana kar, magr jab lajawab huwa toh bhaag nikla.

Is article mein Islami nazria bataya thah kay kaisay Islam mein Ilah mutayyin aur Ilahiyyat ka tayyun keeya jata heh:
 

Is article mein khadam nay tafseelan us kay tamam principles ka radd bi kieeya thah:
 

Lambi maghz mari ko tarq kartay hen, yahan par sirf is par ikhtisaar heh kay WAHHABI ka bayan karda aur us kay ilawa joh bi wahhabiyun kay mabood mutayyin karnay kay asool sab kay sab, kullu, mangarat bila daleel hen. Wahhabiat ko challenge heh kay apnay kissi aik asool ko Quran/Hadith say sabat keren. Ya phir ham joh ihtirazat o baraheen in kay asooloon kay khilaaf lazam kartay hen utha kar dekha denh.

Part 5 - Ghaybana Madad Kay Leyeh Pukarna, Dalail:

"Unka kehna yeh hai ki
1) Gayiibana Madad ke liye kisi ko pukarna use Ma'abood banana hai"

Wahhabi nay lafz Ghaybana ka istimal keeya heh is say muraad do ho sakti hen, aik kissi ghayb cheez ko pukarna yehni fawt ko rooh type ghaybana ko, dosra banda hayat ko magr joh itna door ho kay pukarnay walay ki aur pukaray janay wali ki ankh dekh nah sakti ho aur qaan sun nah saktay hoon yeh bi is ghaybana ka mana ho sakta heh.

Part 5A - Yeh Wala Ghaybana Murad Thah:

Chalyeh donoon Ghaybana par daleel pesh kar detay hen:

“When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583, here]

Nabi Ismail alayhis salam ki walida aur Ibrahim alayhis salam ki zauja nay Ghaybana farishtay ko madad kay leyeh pukara. Abh kia hoga tera Wahhabia? Mushrik theen farishtay ho Mabood bana leeya thah? Ghaybana madad kay leyeh pukara. Aaah Wahhabi laga hukm Shirk/Kufr.

Is kay ilawa aur bi hen:

“Musa Ibn Ishaq related to us from Manjab Ibn Al-Harith, Hatim Ibn Isma’il related to us from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aban Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah.”’ [Ref: Musnad al-Bazzar, Volume 11, Musnad Ibn Abbas, H4922, Page181, here, scribd here.]

“Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say: “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” For indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon.” [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam ul-Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469]

 “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697]

Ghaybana madad ki pukar ki taleem Allah kay Nabi say aur Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal ka amal heh is par. Ghaybana madad ki pukaar ki taleem deh kar kia RasoolAllah nay Ma'bood bananay ki taleem deeh, aur Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal nay pukar kar MAKHLOOQ KO maboood banaya?

Part 5B - Nahin Ji Mera To Dosra Wala, Door Wala Ghaybana Murad Thah:

Chalen Wahhabi keh sakta heh, nahin nahin, mera matlab door wala, ma fawq alasbab wali Ghaybana pukar thee chalen is kay khilaaf bi daleel lenh:

“Maymuna bint Harith, the blessed wife of Prophet (Peace be upon her) narrates: The Prophet (peace be upon him) was doing Wudhu for Tahajjud Salaah at the home of Hazrat Maimuna (radi Allahu anha). He suddenly called out three times, “Labbaik, Labbaik, Labbaik!” (Here I am) and “Nusirtu, Nusirtu, Nusirtu!” (I helped you). Hadhrat Maimuna (radhi Allaho anha) further asked him why he had called out those words”. He replied: “Raajiz (a sahabi from far) was calling me because Quraish wanted to kill him“ [Ref: Imam Tabarani in Mu’jam as-Sagheer, Volume 2, H968]

Raajiz radiallah tala anhu nay door wali Ghaybana madad kay leyeh pukara, aur RasoolAllah ko Mabood banaya, baqawl Wahhabi kay, asool Wahhabiat kay mutabiq Raajiz kay Ma'bood/ilah yehni Nabiullah nay madad kar di. Abh agar Wahhabiat ka asool darust heh to phir RasoolAllah Ma'bood yehni Ilah hen aur agar ghalat heh toh phir ham Kafir ki taraf qaan keun keren. Ham Musalman hen hammen Tawheed bi pata heh aur Kafiroon ko nay Tawheed ka pata heh aur nah Shirk ka aur nah yeh pata kay Ilahiyyat ka tayyun kesay, aur Ilah mutayyin kesay hota heh.

Mein arsa daraaz pehlay Wahhabi thah aur us waqt mujjay Tawheed ka josh ziyada ilm kam, aur Shirk ki behosi ziyada thi aur ilm kam. Magr alhamdulillah Allah kay karam mein nay Wahhabiat ko laat mari aur Islam qubul keeya. Agar Wahhabiat sacha mazhab hoti aur in kay mazhab kay dalail in kay dawoon aur asooloon kay mutabiq Quran/Hadith mein hotay mein kabi bi Wahhabiat nah chorta. Mein nay jab Wahhabiat ko chora toh ult pult kar kay chora, sab tehqeeq kar kay.  Misaal kay tor par joh is nay asool bayan keeyeh hen, un ka ayaat say talluq, aur joh is nay fehm Hadith leeya heh us ka fehm farman rasoolAllah say kia talluq. Haqiqat ko tortay mortay hen aur logoon ki la ilmi ki bunyad par gumra kar detay hen.

Mera yeh likha huwa matan un ko jawab mein post kar denh. Joh jawab denh mujjay ba-khabr kar denh inshallah jawab likh doon ga.

Salam alaykum.

Ji mein inshallah kal tak jawab likh doon ga.

Salam alaykum,

"... and in this way they will fall into Shirk because majority of fathers of old were ignorant folk ..."

A Deobandi brother pointed out, I distorted the translation of, barh jahen gay, to mean, fall into, when the correct translation should have been, advance into. When I looked into the Urdu carefully and he was correct. I did translate it wrong in context of link provided. I looked into various copies of Taqwiyat ul-Iman and I realized the translation was correct but according to another version:

https://archive.org/details/TaqwiyatUlIman/Taqwiyat_ul_Eman_Urdu_Vor2/mode/1up?view=theater

See Page 96,  it states parh and not barh.

Reality is barh/parh both will substantiate my position because contextually one indicates they are already into Shirk and will advance into it further more to the point of emulating ancestors in Shirk and parh jahen gay indicates author is saying, they will fall into Shirk of ancestors ... revert to idol worship which their ancestors did. Meaning wise nothing is changed.

the oldest copy I have of taqwiyat ul-Iman has parh jahen gay. Deobandis and Wahhabis are distorting his books to make him Muslim.

Deobandi argued Shaykh Dehalvi wrote, Shirk logoon mein bhot phehal raha heh, a lot ofShirk is spreading amongst people, and he argued this establishes he doesn't believe majority is Mushrik yet:

"... it is said; Shirk is spreading and Tawheed is nayab: “First one should listen to is; a lot of Shirk is spreading amongsts people and pure Tawheed is nayab.” If Shirk is already spread and Tawheed is rare then Shirk doesn’t need to spread. Statement of Shaykh is based on fact that Muslims are Muwahideen and Shirk is beginning to spread in them."

I have responded to this argument already and checked mated him but new thing came to my mind after reading following:

"Meaning nor Allah's respect nor desire to follow the path of Rasool instead will begin to deem fathers/grandfathers deeds as authority and in this way they will fall into Shirk because majority of fathers of old were ignorant folk, whoever follows their path, tradition, himself will turn into Mushrik. From this Hadith we learn that in the end of times ancient Shirk [pre-islamic era] will be established, and it happened in accordance with utterance of Messenger of God. Like Muslims are engaged in acts of Shirk with their Prophets, Imam, matyrs, in the same manner ancient Shirk of [pre-islamic era] is spreading."  [Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page 58]

Here: “First one should listen to is; a lot of Shirk is spreading amongsts people and pure Tawheed is nayab.” The Shirk spreading is ancient Shirk in the light of following: "Like Muslims are engaged in acts of Shirk with their Prophets, Imam, matyrs, in the same manner ancient Shirk of [pre-islamic era] is spreading." 

In other words, Muslims are already Mushrik, but Shirk in which the Mushriks will return to the religion of their ancestors hasnt fully spread but it is spreading. This meaning is obvious if pages 57/58/59 are read:

https://besturdubooks.net/taqwiyat-ul-iman/

Tawheed is part of Islamic ritual acts of worship and a core requirement. And Tawheed mentioned in the article is Islamic Tawheed and not Wahhabi so called Tawheed. Also the Tawheed requirement is for acts of worship sanctioned in Islam, commanded, and worship which is accepted/approved and rewarded by to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Deobandi.

bump.

https://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/26207-disrespect-and-insult-of-prophet-sallallahu-alayhi-wa-aalihi-wassallm-in-shaykh-ashraf-ali-thanvis-statement-of-hifz-ul-iman/

Controversial And Kufria Statements:

Question: “A certain individual, Zayd, 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 … And says Ilm Al-Ghayb is of two types: bil-Zaat [of one’s ownself]; in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb, none else. And ba-wasta [through means, alternative; bil-Ardh; granted by another] and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. 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] Answer: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of two crimes:

ia) He stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no distinction/merit above when compared to Tom, Dick, Harry, infants, lunatics, animal, and insects. Why? Because according to Shaykh Thanvi Prophet’s Ghayb is same as them: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge …” Even IF the Ghayb was same in quantity there is no justification to say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not better than these ... He could have said his knowledge is not better than these … instead he said prophet is not better than these …  He likened Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to animals, infants, lunatics … and this is insult hurled at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallma).

 ib) To question what is so special about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) … in his statement indicates Shaykh Thanvi believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special/unique in comparison to lunatics, infants, animals, insects … This is insult … hey Deobandi there is nothing special about you … hey deobandi what is special about you … you’re like an infant, insect, lunatic, animal, donkey, Khanzir … see there is no insult of Deobandi in this … look I am not insulting Shaykh Thanvi … You know how to read Quran … what is so special about you Shaykh Thanvi … even nursery kids can read it, mentally handicapped can read the Quran … sarcasm. Anyone sane would realize that nursery kid might be able to recite Quran, but Shaykh Thanvi could have more beautifying voice, recite proper rules of Tajweed, Thanvi knows Tafsir better than kid … all these would mean Shaykh Thanvi would better than and unique compared to nursery kids and mentally challenged.

iia) Shaykh Thanvi’s second crime is that he believed Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is same as animals, insects, lunatics, and children in quantity, quality, and types. And this is why he mentioned them to negate speciality/uniqueness and better-ness of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because …” Anyone ounce of sense would know that no Ghayb is known to lunatics, infants, every Tom, Dick, Harry, and animals. So why would Shaykh Thanvi; use their non-existent knowledge of Ghayb to negate better-ness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and negate merit of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowing Ghayb? He had to do what a comedian would call put-down. When a comedian is hackled by member of audience typically comedian would say something horrible nasty comment about hackler, his mother … so hackler does not intervene during his show. Shaykh Thanvi insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because it was suggested he has limited knowledge of Ghayb. And he had to do a put-down of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prevent Sunni from believing in prophetic Ghayb. This is heritage of Deobandis and evil Sunnah Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi originated and Shaykh Thanvi acted on it.

iib) Let’s suppose some creation, an animal, insect, lunatic, children and everyone in general has some knowledge of Ghayb as Shaykh Thanvi suggested: “… 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.” Will that mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is no better than lunatics, animals, infants, insects? And his Ghayb knowledge is not better than what is known to animals, insects, lunatics, kids? Nope. Absolutely not. Because merit is to be established on basis of quantity, quality, and different types of Ghuyub known to each party.

iic) Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is DEFINITIVE in quality i.e. Qatti. And any knowledge of Ghayb that a creation may gain, such as a true dream of a common man, at best, at the highest level would reach to degree of Zann i.e. doubtful/suspect. Meaning it is unreliable, questionable, doubtful, not worthy of acting on. IF you get a dream in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is instructing you to slaughter your child – will you get up and do that? Prophets their Ghayb, the reports they received via Gibraeel, the Ghayb they heard and saw, true dreams they had, were all QATTI. This is why Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) woke up and informed his son I have to sacrifise you in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Prophets even received Wahy in their sleep in form of dream. This is why Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said (a non-prophets) true dream is one 40^th part of Wahi. In short the Ghayb which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw with his eyes, heard with his ears, saw in his mind in dreams, Ghayb that was brought to him by Gibraeel was DEFINITIVE.  There was, is, will be no doubt, question, regarding certaintity of this Ghayb. How can this DEFINITIVE Ghayb compare to Zanni Ghayb of creation?

iid) Before the next point it is important to know difference between linguistical Ghayb and Shari Ghayb.

(a) Linguistic Ghayb is all that is out of reach of common-man’s five senses. For Amr what is happening at London Bridge at this moment is Ghayb because it is not in his five senses.  For Bakr the events of London Bridge are not Ghayb because he can see and hear because he is at the location.  In other words linguistic Ghayb is one-man’s Ghayb but not another’s. Or you can say linguistic Ghayb is of type which is Ghayb from senses of one creature but it can be accessed by an ordinary creature with his ordinary five senses. Linguistic Ghayb is not truly Ghayb because this type of Ghayb is in realm of ordinary existence. Hell, paradise, angels, Jinn, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), preserved tablet … are truly Ghayb because they exist in a plain which no ordinary creation can access.

(b) Shari Ghayb is that which only elite can have access to. Obviously through their five senses but super-five-senses. This is Ghayb of type such as angels, Jinn, Satan, hell, paradise, Wahi etc. Ordinary human cannot access these Ghuyub with their senses even IF these were displayed in front of them. Prophets and Messengers had access to these.

iie) The creations can only know a certain type Zanni Ghayb as well as linguistic-Ghayb such was seeing/hearing Ghayb. But Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are DEFINITIVE TYPE and Shari type i.e. hearing, seeing, wahi as well as linguistical-Ghuyub. How can these types of prophetic Ghuyub not establish merit above common creatures Zanni Ghayb and linguistical Ghayb?

iif) Quantity is also a mean via which someone’s superiority is measured. An individual with one car and another person owns 50 cars whose wealth standing is better? Obviously the individual who owns greater quantity/number of cars. Quantity of Ghuyub which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are such greater in quantity that one has to be stupid to even assume anyone of creatures Shaykh Thanvi mentioned equalled Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Ghayb knowledge. How can one whose knowledge of Qatti Ghayb immeasurably exceeds the Zanni quantities known to creatures not be superior, better, and special in his knowledge as well as have merit above creatures mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi?

iig) In short quality, types of Ghuyub known, quantity of Ghuyub known all combine to establish merit of prophetic knowledge and by default superiority of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over the creatures which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Yet Shaykh Thanvi denied this reality. Question is why? Did he not know quality, quantity and different types/forms/genre Ghuyub establish merti? Was he an idiot? I have no doubt Shaykh Thanvi was fully aware of these after all he was a major scholar and not a regular idiot. Than why would Shaykh Thanvi write this Kufr. Simple fact in Deobandism for sake of defending Tawheed insulting Prophets and Saliheen Awliyah is a virtue. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi invented this Sunnah. Shaykh Thanvi following Shaykh Dehalvi’s footsteps felt Tawheed was in danger if Ilm ul-Ghayb is affirmed for Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so he did what Shaykh Dehalvi did in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman, and Sirat e Mustaqeem i.e. insult the Prophets, companions, and Awliyah, here. In other words this was nothing accidental mistake rather a deliberate attempt to discourage people from believing in prophetic Ghayb by downplaying Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) merits and insulting him.

iii) Anyone who is familiar with what Shaykh Thanvi wrote, why he wrote it, is aware evidences refuting him, evidences of Quran/Sunnah establishing prophetic Ghayb and yet considers him Muslim after exhausting all effort such a person is Kafir and apostate like Shaykh Thanvi.

FiftyFour - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi On Distractions In Prayers:

Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi whom the Wahhabis of subcontinent and Deobandis consider as their major scholar. Even Hanbali Wahhabi publishers in Riyadh published his Taqwiyat Ul Iman in English and on basis of this I assume they are appreciate his views. Ismail Dehalvi wrote a book, Sirat e Mustaqeem and in it while discussing polluting thoughts which effect purity of Salah Ismail Dehalvi wrote; if thought of engaging an illegal sexual intercourse (i.e. Zina) during Salah enters into ones [heart/mind] it would be better to think of having sexual intercourse with his own wife. He continued - [During Salah] to direct effort [in imagination] toward Shaykh, or Saliheen like him, even if it is honourable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey, here: "Rather then to think of adultery it is better to think of having with your own wife. and Shaykh or pious elders like them to concentrate on them or even on Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in prayers is worse then being drowned in thoughts of your bull or donkey." [Ref: Sirat e Mustaqeem, page 118, here. another version page 118, here.] He also justified his this statement saying; thoughts of respectables during Salah attach to ones heart and takes one toward Shirk – because respect of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah is Shirk. Where as the thoughts of bull/donkey do not cling to heart. And thoughts of ghayr (i.e. others) in prayers with respect take one toward Shirk. He went on to recommend the ‘cure’ of having such Waswas (i.e. Urdu; waswasa). He states, in Zuhr prayers if one had the waswasa of Hadhoor (i.e.Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in all Rakats, then he should perform sixteen Rakat to as an act of atonement. And he states, if ‘waswasa’ of [Hadhoor sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam] was in only few Rakats then he should atone for it by performing four Rakat. His emphasis is that in atonement Rakats one should completely free himself from the ‘waswasa’ of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Earlier I stated I did not defend these statements of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. The reason was, I personally had bone to pick with what he wrote. Even though I did not initially agree with orthodox Muslims; this statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is disrespectful and insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but I felt this statement did not correctly represent Islamic teaching.

Part One: Firstly, it is/was understandable for him to encourage people to focus and direct your attention toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in prayers. But instructing the Muslims away from thoughts of illegal intercourse, and then directing them to mind with ones own wife was/is not correct, nor it was, or is better, both are against the teaching of Islam. He instructed the Muslims to direct the attention away from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and directed them to think of their bull/donkey. Was this the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it was not! Did he say when you think of committing greater sin in Salah then think of lesser one? Or did he say when you are about to commit major sin instead commit a minor sin? I had to be fair to my self and soul and say the truth, not by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Did not Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teach us method of purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he did indeed! Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has taught that when performing Salah imagine you can see Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and if you cannot do this then imagine he can see you. Knowing that you are in presence of your Lord, your Creator, and knowing that he can observe you, will bring the humility, and sincerity, and purity in Salah. Minds/Hearts of men are so easily influenced by Iblees, he wispers into hearts/minds of men distractions. What can be greater distraction from purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then to get entangled in web of - think of lesser evil when Iblees wispers into your heart/mind a greater evil. More you try to think of lesser sins to get away from greater sins in your Salah the more you have entangled your self. Thinking of Zina, think of with wife, oops! But thinking of having with wife in Salah is not good so think of lesser one. Each time you think of lesser one, you will aim for another the lesser one, and your lessers will not finish but your Salah will. You have destroyed your Salah following the suggestion of Iblees. Instead of purifying your Salah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you have spent the entire time chasing the lesser evil then the one Iblees has planted in your mind/heart. And I remembered the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) whosoever introduces into matter of religion which is not part of it is to be rejected [or will have it rejected]. I considered Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s advice/teaching to be [reprehensible] innovation and something which takes to hell fire.

Part Two: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated to atone for a Rakat in which ‘waswasa’ of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) one has to peform four Rakat. And if one has waswasa of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in entire Zuhr prayer he is to perform sixteen Rakat to atone for this offense. I found this also unacceptable because there was no precident in teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) where he himself or instructed his companions performed four Rakat to atone for lapse in a single Rakat. We only find that he performed Sajdah of Sahw (i.e. prostration of forgetfulness) if he made mistake and instructed his companions the very same. This teaching of performing four Rakat for each Rakat as an atonement is an innovation into religion of Islam which has no foundation it Islam.

Part Three: It was these two reasons on basis of which I did not defend the Sirat e Mustaqeem statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. But I have to point out that I did not consider him to be a Mubtadi (i.e. Innovator) rather excused his innovations under the pretext that he made a Ijtihadi mistake and he will be rewarded and excused.

Part Four: Coming to issue of orthodox Muslims objecting on the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated instead of engaging in thoughts of Zina [while performing Salah] one should think of sexual intercourse with his wife. And in the following sentenceMaulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated during Salah to direct focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in images/thoughts of your bull and donkey. If Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi was following the principle, instead of greater sin engage in lesser sin, then he considered directing focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a greater sin then focusing toward bull/donkey. If Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi was upon the principle, instead of sinful thoughts direct focus toward blameless thoughts, then he considered directing focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sinful and deemed engaging in mind with wife and thinking of your bull/donkey as blameless. In first case, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of stating thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse sin then sin of thinking about bull/donkey. In the second case, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of stating; thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is sinful but thinking of donkey/bull, or with wife isn’t.

Part Five: I read many Taweels, and many excuses presented in defence of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi, but I did not accept any of them. Firstly, I was aware of Hadith of Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) in which she acted angrily when a Sahabi mentioned that if a dog, donkey, and a woman passes infront of person performing prayers, then prayer is invalidated. She said angrily, you have compared us (i.e. women) to dogs and donkeys, here. The Sahabi did not compare the women to dogs/donkeys he only stated they and women invalidate prayers if they pass infront of one who is performing prayers. Yet she took offence because being mentioned with the dogs, donkeys was offensive in her judgment. I thought and asked myself, how would she react to statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi? Would she say it is all Halal and pure Tawheed or order the murder of one who wrote this? Another incident in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was distributing gold alloy to leaders of Najd. Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi shouted: Be just O Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) sought permission to kill him for insinuating that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not distribute gold alloy justly, here. In the other Hadith Khalid bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) also sought permission to kill him, here. Considering the delicate and fine nature of respect, and love companions had for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) I concluded if any of them ever heard these words uttered which Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi had written they surely would kill him for insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as stated: “And when it is said to them [the Munafiqeen]: Believe as the people [of firm faith, companions] believe. They say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.” [Ref: 2:13] Based on instructions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I came to believe what the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have come to believe. Meaning I believed, the statement fo Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is indeed insulting and insulting/disrespectful enough to warrant his murder – warranted on basis of his Kufr and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Part Six: Later on I did dwelve into polemical side of the debate to further my knowledge on the topic. I want to adress something important which the Deobandis argue in defence of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. They say he said, apni himmat ko laga dena behal ya gadday ki soorat mein mustaghrik honay say bura heh.[58] He did not say, apnay khiyal (i.e. thought) ko laga dena behal ya gadday ki soorat mein mustaghrik honay say bura heh, therefore your saying, that he said, thought of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey, is misrepresentation and distortion of what he actually wrote. Muslims respond to Deobandis, sarf (i.e. exherting) of  himmat (i.e. effort), or one exherting own himmat (i.e. effort), will be in imagination hence it is part of thoughts. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is talking about mental exhertion and it is composed of nothing but thoughts. While explaning his position why one should not direct effort Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi explains, Shaykh’s thoughts attach themselves to ones heart due to respect and greatness [of Shaykh]. Therefore even Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has confirmed correlation between, [Urdu;] himmat lagana, or [Farsi;] sarf e himmat to thought and thinking – all of which are mental activities. In other words, one will exhert mentaly to avoid thinking about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and will have to exhert mentaly to think of his bull/donkey. Which ever direction one chooses to direct his focus all will be a thought process, a process of khiyal. Hence to argue that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi did not state, khiyal (i.e. thought) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then of donkey/bull in Salah, is based on ignorance of how a normal human being with sound mind will exhert mental effort – in thoughts. He did mean, in khiyal exherting effort to think of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then imersing in images of your own donkey/bull. Even though simple form of Ismail Dehalvis intended meaning is conveyed but even if the full details are disclosed even then insult/disrespect of the statement is not removed. And to sample the reality of this please refer to Farsi or Urdu version of Sirat e Mustaqeem.

Part Seven: Lastly, during the last days of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was leading the prayers and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) entered from his room into Masjid Nabvi. And after persistently being alarmed by companions, he retreated back until he was being lead by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he was leading the rest of companions. When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) entered the entire focus of congregation was toward informing Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu)  of presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In another Hadith it is stated that companions used to look at the face of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in third/fourth Rakat  to see if he is reciting something. One companion was asked how do you know that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recited a supplication in third/fourth Rakat. The companion replied looked from corner of my eye and I saw his beard move. Did they not think; we must perserve Tawheed, directing our attention toward presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take us toward Shirk? Or did they think or say, to concentrate toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse then immersing yourself in images of your donkey or bull? They knew during Salah we the companions with utmost love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam),  and with our hearts and minds filled with love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), we invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salwat: O Allah send blessings upon Muhammad and on the Aal (i.e. family and followers) of Muhammad. How could they utter or even contemplate such Kufr which Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote? How could the thought of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not come with love and respect? And thoughts of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will enter our hearts and minds while reciting Salawat then should we think of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with hate and disrespect? Or should we direct attention toward our bull/donkey? What about Tashahud – Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and His mercy and His blessings? Should we not focus toward our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when we are adressing him? Lunatics, have you lost your sense? We adress Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with love and respect, and we think of him with love and with respect, and then we adress him with: Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and His mercy, and His blessings. You be to your sexual fantasies and imersing in thoughts of donkeys/bulls in Salah and me to Islam.

Part Eight: There was no need for Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi to state tawajah toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then thinking of your bull/donkey. He could have easily expressed that according to his form of Wahhabism, respect of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah takes one toward Shirk hence effort should be made to not to focus attention toward any creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with love, or respect. The Farsi/Urdu languages are very well developed and could have allowed him to express his position without comparative terms if he chose to do so. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi said, when Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi presented Taqwiyatul Iman to his co-religionists he stated that, he has used harsh [and I M.Ali.R say, disrespectful] language but people will fight over it and sort themselves out, here. This indicates that Mualvi Ismail Dehalvi was aware; his style of writing is offensive and disrespectful but hoped after strife everything will settle. From this I gather Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi deliberately used deragotry language saying , tawajah toward righteous Muslims as well as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was stated to be worse then imersing your self in thoughts of your bull and donkey. Note Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s comparative style, due to y the x is worse then z, is constant in both books. He was aware of harsh/disprespectful language and also was aware of the strife he would cause by adopting such style of writing but did not rectify it nor there is authenticated report of his repentence. As a result of his Taqwiyatul Iman and Sirat e Mustaqeem there was uproar amongst the Muslims of subcontinent and this strife resulted in formation of two distinct groups, Muslims who opposed Ismail Dehalvi and Muslims who supported and deffended his writtings and continue to do so. The first became known as Ahle Sunnat [in other words orthodox Muslims] and the second became known as Deobandi and Ahle Hadith [a non-conformist Wahhabi sect]. And the fight/strife between these factions has only got worse as time has progressed.

FiftyFive - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – More Disgraced And Less Then:

Part One: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “And know/believe [with firm] conviction every creation may he be great (i.e. bara) or lowly (i.e. chota) compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiayatul Iman, page 35, Urdu] To begin with I had questioned: Where is the proof that – every creation is more disgraced then cobbler? Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say this or did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teach this? There is no proof for this teaching of Ismail Dehalvi. In fact it is a disrespectful innovation.

Part Two: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote, har makhlooq (i.e. every creation), this is inclusive of all creation, including Prophets, companions, and righteous of Ummah. So according to him all Prophets and their followers are more disgraced then a cham’mar (i.e. cobbler). Note how Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has constructed the sentence. According to construction of sentence, compared to majestay and honour of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the cobbler has some worth, but the Prophets, including our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions are worthless. The construction of the sentence by Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is similar to following: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is worse in his Kufr then Firawn. Implications of both statements is; (i) chammar is better in position of honour, (ii) and Firawn is lesser in Kufr, then the mentioned in both sentences.

Part three: As mentioned in the sentence Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated ‘every creation’ and therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and his companions are said to be more disgraced then a cobbler. In this context I asked three questions: (i) Is Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) more zaleel (i.e. disgraced) then a cobbler? (ii) Is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)) zaleel compared to Allah? (iii) Is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) more zaleel then cobbler compared to Allah and is the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi valid? Has I understood and understand – the answers to first two questions are fundamental to answer the last question in affirmation. If these two questions are answered with affirmation then the answer for the last question is naturally, yes! Meaning; if he was more disgraced then cobbler, and disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then naturally for the third/finale question would be: Yes he is more disgraced then a cobbler compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! No sane Muslims would ever affirm Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is more disgraced then a cobbler. Suppose if someone negates the first question, affirms the second question, then he would believe: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This also is rejection of Ismail Dehalvis statement. Now coming to what person would believe – how does he know Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), did he read it in Quran, or Ahadith, or did he invent it? Answer, it is neither in Quran nor in books of Ahadith, it is an innovation, and Kufria innovation. Alhasil, there are two fundamental components [both indicated in first two questions] in Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s sentence and both have to be true for the statement of Ismail Dehalvi to be valid. This disproves the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi but also establishes Rather that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was said to be more disgraced then a cobbler as well as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – because fundamental contruction of sentence was based on two points: (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was more disgraced then cobbler, (ii) and he is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is due to this that I believe Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of tripple Kufr in one statement alone.

Part Four: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (al azza) will expel therefrom the meaner (a'zilla)." But izza (honour) belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.” [Ref: 63:8] If one compares the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) toAllah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), he is with Izza (i.e. honour, dignity). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shahid and so is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Shahid. To say compared to Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) station of Shahid Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no station of Shahid – it would be Kufr because a station of Shahid has been affirmed in textually of Quran. Point is, Allah and his beloved Prophet both can be Shahid and have Izzat (i.e. honour) – how ever limited the Shahid/Izza of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) maybe compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Our love and respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) should not exceed the limits of Tawheed – meaning we should not elevate him to status of an Ilah and we should not worship him because such honour and such respect only belongs to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). So even in comparative terms between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), the Izza of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot and should not be denied because it has been textually confirmed. Or to say, compared to seeing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is blind. This is going against what is established, one can say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in comparision to the Khaliq (i.e. Creator) has limited and restricted sight but cannot say, he is blind without warranting Kufr. One can say, in comparision to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the honour/dignity of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has limited/resctricted Izza [due to prohibition of elevating him to status of an Ilah] but cannot completely deny it or say he is Zaleel, without warranting Kufr. Unlimited/Unrestricted Izza is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because all honour is of Him and only He has the right/honour to be worshipped with ultimate acts of honour/respect – worship.

Part Five: Supporters of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi argue that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi did not mean every creation inclusive of Prophets and their righteous followers. So I would like to present a part of what Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “Every person may he be great (i.e. bara) or lowly (i.e. chota), may he be Prophet (i.e. Nabi) or a saint (i.e.Wali) …” [Taqwiyatul Iman, Maktaba Khalil, Page 75] Note here Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi used words ‘bara’ (i.e. great) and ‘chota’ (i.e. lowly), and right after it used word Nabi and Wali. This indicates great person in his terminology is Prophet and lowly is a Wali. Islamicly speaking the Prophets are superior to Awliyah and Awliyah are lower in rank then Prophets. Therefore Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi counted Prophets amongst great (i.e. baray) in rank and righteous believers are lower in rank therefore they are stated to be lowly (i.e. chotay). In light of this Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi specificly targetted Prophets and Awliyah when he said compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are more disgraced then a cobbler. In another part of his book he actually defines who is included in ‘bara’ (i.e. great) and ‘chota’ (i.e. lowly). He states: “Meaning, all humans are brothers of each other. One who is bara buzurq (i.e. great personality) that one is older/great brother. Therefore respect him like an older brother. And Malik of all is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), worship is due to him. From this Hadith we learn that, Awliyah (i.e. saints), Ambiyah (i.e. Prophets), Imams and sons of Imams, and spiritual guides (i.e. Peer) and matyrs (i.e. Shaheed). Meaning all people beloved/near to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are human, and humble humans, and our brothers, but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted them bara’ee (i.e. greatness), therefore they are our baray (i.e. elder/great) brothers. We have been instructed to obey their instructions. We are their chotay (i.e. younger/minor) therefore they should be respected like human beings.” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Page 80] This establishes absolutely clearly that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi considered the Prophets and righteous of Ummah amongst the baray. Once he explicitly stated who the baray and chotay are according to him and then hinted at what he has stated by using words bara/baray and chota/chotay. He used these words as indicators so readers of his book can relate to his position of who baray/chotay are when they study the content of his book. Alhasil he considered the Prophets and righeous followers of the Prophets, including Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions, as more disgraced then a cobbler.

Part Six: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated, honour (i.e. Izza) is for Allah and for the Messenger and righteous believers, here: “They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (al azza) will expel therefrom the meaner (a'zilla)." But izza (honour) belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.” [Ref: 63:8] Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) included Himself, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and righteous believers amongst the people of honour/dignity. The hypocrites have not been mentioned and this exclusion indicates they are disgraced (i.e. Zaleel). And therefore to say every creation is Zaleel - which is inclusive of all Prophets, righteous followers of Prophets – means one is indicrectly labelling them has hypocrites, and it is Kufr.

Part Seven: In religion of Islam honour/dignity is connected with piety. So one maybe a chammar (i.e. cobbler) by profession but if he adhere to pillars of Islam and acts on good and abstains from prohibitions then such a cobbler is from righteous believers and honourable.  Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has statement indicates he considers all cobblers as disgraced.

Part Eight: Also note the basic structure of the following statement Ismail Dehalvi is same as the one discussed in this section: "Allah's exalted glory is such that all Prophets and friend of Allah infront of Him are less then speck of nothingness." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 74, urdu] And I leave it to readers to understand his statement.

FiftySix - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – Will Die And Decay Into  Dust:

Part One: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi quoted Hadith from Mishqat in which a Sahabi seeks permission to prostrate to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) questioned the companions will you prostrate to my grave when you pass by it? The companion responds he will not prostrate to his grave and Prophet said then don’t prostrate to me now. On this Hadith Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi deduces; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is actually saying: "Meaning, I will one day die (and) disintegrate into dust (after decay) ." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] During my Deobandi days I had summed this as an error of Ijtihad. After properly studying the temperament of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – he was a michief maker and disrespectful (i.e. Gustakh) individual. Especially when he himself is reported to have said, I have used harsh language at times but after strife people will sort themselves out, here. Now I am of opinion this had nothing to do with Ijtihad, or mistake but this was deliberate attempt to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by putting words into mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for sake of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tazleel (i.e. humiliation). Even the children who have never attended a Madrassa know that Prophets are alive in their graves and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has forbidden the earth to decompose their bodies. My understanding is that this knowledge is and was elementary, and Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi deliberately chose to write this to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note he wrote; Prophet said, ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In Urdu words, khaq mein milna, mitti mein mil jana, mitti mein milna, are always used in meaning of, destroying something in such a fashion that it leaves no distinguishable sign between soil and the item destroyed. And such destruction with the usage of word mitti mein milna is always associated with negative conotations of dishonour, disgrace, and humiliation. If someone said, ham nay ussay itna mara kay ussay mitti mein mala deeya, it would mean we beat him so much that we made him worthless [like dust]. Or, utterly humiliated him with excessive beatings. In every such usage, meaning of humiliation and disgrace is part of it. Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi was also familiar with how typically this word was used. Despite this he attributed the words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In other words Ismail Dehalvi wrote that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about himself; I will one day die become dust. Neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said this nor has a companion uttered such blasphemous words. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has honoured Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with life in his grave a more real life then earthly life, bestowed upon him the life of paradise.

Part Two: Note, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi attributed these words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and these words were his understanding and belief. Otherwise there was no reason for him to deduce/attribute if he did not believe the following for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) -: "Meaning, I will one day die (and) disintegrate into dust (after decay) ." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] O Muslims! I ask you: Will you anounce, or believe, due to your love/respect for your mother, or father, or daughter, or sister, or brother, or son, that she/he has died, and the body has decomposed, and has turned dust? Will your heart allow you to utter it? How could a Muslim/Momin utter and believe that the body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has turned to dust [due to decomposition]? When I realised the implications of what Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi had written, and realised what he believed, and what he is promoting by writing this book, I was stunned. I recited Shahadah again and again affirming my faith in Islam until I felt I am a Muslim. I repented and sought forgiveness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for saying good and praising Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi.

Part Three: Muslim scholars have routinely criticised Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi for his lack of good manners when adressing Prophets, and righteous scholars of Ummah. And the insults of Taqwiyatul Iman directed to Prophets and righteous men of Ummah are obvious to anyone with mustard worth of Iman in their heart. Due to the obvious disrespectful and insulting nature of Ismail Dehalvi’s statements in Taqwiyatul Iman his modern supporters have begun altering statements of Taqwiyatul Iman. And the statement in being objected in discussion is one of such statements which have been altered to conform to accepted belief and to remove disrespectful wording of sentence attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Proof of this can be found, here. Darul Kutub publishers altered the statement to: “Meaning, at least one day I will too die and get into lap of grave to sleep.” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Page 78, Urdu] This is proof of disrespectful nature of the statement. Had the statement been innocent and blameless there was no need for it to be altered.

Part Four: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said that anyone who attributes to him deliberately something which he has not said such a person can occupy his place in hell, here. Anyone who attributes something which he has not stated is in hell fire. Where would he be who attributes to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a statement in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is saying something which is belittling him? Such a person is in the deepest part of hell among the munafiqeen who have disbelieved in Islam after believing in it.

Khadim nay aik channel banaya heh jis par meray pass joh Munazray thay upload kar raha hoon:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzv-ljWPGY_htQ7H_yp8C4w

Yeh aik hazrat youtube channel kay owner hen. Deobandi hen. Thori baat huwi toh dawat deeh kay idhar aa kar mujjay Ilm Ghayb ki wazahat keren.

Content approved by moderators.

Salam alaykum.

Al-Tasdeeqaat janab aayeh idhar forum par aap ko welcome kartay hen.

On 12/20/2018 at 1:42 PM, MuhammedAli said:

Salam alayqum,

Haq Nawaz Jhangvi nay munazra Jhang mein bi yahi ihtiraz keeya thah ... kay Isa alayhis salam kay mutalliq likha gaya heh kay woh na-kam lotay aur nakami kay izalay wasteh wapis aahen gay ... Nabi kay mutalliq yeh baat likhna bey-adabi heh ... yeh joh Mufti Sahib hen in par toba lazam heh. Yeh sar'ri gustakhi nahin jis par hukum Kufr ho magar is par bi toba lazam heh. Isa alayhis salam ka uthaya janay ka masla; jitna Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala nay un kay wasteh waqt mutayyin keeya thah aur joh tableegh ka hukum thah woh unoon nay keeya. Phir Yahood nay unneh Shaheed karna chaha toh joh azal say mansha e illahi thee us kay mutabiq unneh uthaya gaya aur ussee kay mutabiq wapis behja jahay ga. Isa alayhis salam ko uthaya jana aur phir wapis behja jana Dajjal kay qatal kay wasteh aur zamana aakhir mein woh Yahood o Nasara ko Islam ki haqqaniat ka bataneh kay wasteh, aur un ko yeh sharf deeya jahay ga kay woh Ummati e Khaatim al-Nabiyeen hoon, ghaliban yeh un ki dua thee. Mufti Sahib joh bi hen wesay qiyas bakwas ki bunyad par kahani bana bethay. Aur joh waja mein nay biyan ki agar kartay toh Nabi Hazrat Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam ki azmat bi buland hoti aur Christian ko jawab bi ho jata. Aur aakhiri baat yeh baat joh Mufti Sahib nay likhi yeh hamari jammat ka nazria nahin nah kohi aql saleem wala is ka difa karay ga. Yeh jin Mufti Sahib nay is ko likha heh uneeh ka nazria heh aur wohi zummedar hen aur is ka wabaal uneeh kay sar par heh. Un ki yeh baat Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat kay mowaqif o taleem kay khilaaf heh. Hamara wohi nazria heh joh mein nay upar biyan keeya.

Salam alaykum.

Mein nay joh Musannaf Anwar e Shariat kay baray mein likha us say ruju karta hoon. Kafi arsa baad is mozoo par tehqeeq kee aur sayaq o sabaq ko dekha toh andaza huwa kay yeh waqia hi aik ilzami jawab heh jis ki bunyad muttariz kay nazria par hoti heh. Mufti saahib ka yeh nazria hargiz nahin thah kay Nabi Isa (alayhis salam) nakaam wapis lotay hen.

bump.