MuhammedAli

Brief Account Of Dispute Surrounding Deobandi Scholar Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

3 posts in this topic

Introduction:

Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi authored Hifz ul-Iman in response to three questions. While answering the last question, about Ilm al-Ghayb, he made number of questionable and disrespectful statements hurting the dignity of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The Islamic scholarship of subcontinent challenged him to retract and repent but he refused. Resulting a controversy between his detractors and his supporters which has lasted hundered years.

Shaykh Thanvi And His Connections:

Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is the founder of Deobandism and Wahhabism in subcontinent. He can be considered the founding father of all disputes that have plagued the Muslims of subcontinent. He originated the dispute or had laid the foundation of it. He wrote many books but Taqwiyat ul-Iman was considered his legacy and in which he tactfull insulted Prophets and righteous of Ummah. In the mentioned book he wrote: “Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have!”[1] [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP, here] Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s Deobandism stemed from Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s teaching. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi drank from the same poisonous cup. As result the two mentioned fruits didn’t fall far from the tree. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi being inheritor of their tradition was no different from his three seniors. And disrespecting and insulting the Prophets and Saliheen in pretext of championing Tawheed has ever since become a distinguishing trait via which they are recognised and a repugnant tradition which the theological descendents of Deobandism have kept alive.

Hifz ul-Iman And Books Related To It, By Shaykh Thanvi:

Hifz ul-Iman was written on 8th of Muharram 1319 Hijri and then ten years later in response to queries of Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi he wrote Bast al-Banan (Sha’ban, 1329 Hijri). In Bast al-Banan Shaykh Thanvi answered the questions posed by Shaykh Darbhangi and resorted presenting Taweel of his statement. Then on 17th of Safar 1342 Hijri in response to a unnamed Maulvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. He agreed statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such that it is difficult to defend against and commoners take it to mean insult. And therefore he accepted the suggestion that statement needs to be modified and unrepentently modified it. Note typically modification of statement is sign of repentence but Shaykh Thanvi wrote in Taghyeer ul-Unwan that he deems statement of Hifz ul-Iman to be blameless but as an act of strategy of war he will modify it.

Shaykh Thanvi And His Disrespectful Statement:

It should be noted Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi believed only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ta’ala) has knowledge of Ghayb and not Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And this belief Shaykh Thanvi shared with Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. In context of this belief Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman (1319H/1901CE) in which he attempts respond request of Fatwah (i.e. edict). Questioner states: “A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Ilm al-Ghayb is bil-Zaat (i.e. of Self), in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. Knower Of Ghayb). And ba-wasta (i.e. bil-Ardh, through means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb[2]. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] While answering third and last question he made wrote words which at best are questionable. And in their true nature these words are extremely disrespectful and insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement In Perspective Of Islamic And Deobandi Belief:

If prophetic knowledge is equale in quantity to the mentioned then there would be no speciality for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Or if the type of knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses is same as the mentioned then there is no speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Muslims believe and even sane Deobandis would not disbelieve; both in quantity and type of Ghuyu
b known to Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are unique/special because this is established from Quran/Hadith. If the quantity of prophetic knowledge is greater by inumerable amount. The type of knowledge he has is definitely unique and special. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. To negate speciality and uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in a fashion Shaykh Thanvi did is disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and can only be written for insult/disrespect purposes.

The Reaction To Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement:

When the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah became aware of this insult and negation of established merit they protested at the sheer odacity of Shaykh Thanvi to dare to equate Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wass’allam) Ghayb knowledge to highlighted. Scholars of Islam directed his attention toward the insulting and the disrespectful meaning of his statement and pointed out implications of his words. They requested that he repent and repeal the statement. And chief amongst them was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, the Imam, the Mujtahid, and Mujadid, Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Their pleas fell on deaf ears and issue was propelled into realm of debate/discussion. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) repeatedly requested Shaykh Thanvi to discuss/debate the statement and repent but his effort was without success.

Enter Murtaza Hassan And His Humiliation:

Instead Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi took it upon himself to represent his Shaykh Thanvi. And wrote numerous pamphlet size booklets directly attacking Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and challenging him for debate on the statement of his beloved Shaykh Thanvi. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) did not respond to Shaykh Darbangi’s booklets and prevented his students and supporters from responding to him because his booklets contained personal attacks against Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). He refused to debate Shaykh Thanvi’s self appointed representative stating that author of statement is alive and well enough hence there is no need for another to represent him. Even though Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) was on principle but this further encouraged Shaykh Darbhangi and continued on his path of personal attacks and insults until Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) wrote Abhas e Aakhira (i.e. the last exhortion.), here. In which Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) exposed Shaykh Darbhangi’s abusive attacks and deception. Sayyidi pointed out books which Shaykh Darbhangi invented, content which he fabricated, and deceptively attributed invented books and their invented content to scholars of Ahlus Sunnah including his father Mawlana Naqi Ali Khan (rahimullah) and even attributed invented books and content to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) finally decided to put a sock in his mouth and stated he will debate Shaykh Darbhangi if Shaykh Thanvi writes on his letter-pad with his personal stamp that Shaykh Darbhangi is representing him and Shaykh Darbhangi’s defeat will be Shaykh Thanvi’s defeat which was a fair demand. Instead; the itching for debate Shaykh Darbhangi remained silent for a year or two and then once again continued claimed to be representative of Shaykh Thanvi.

The Trinity Of Shameless Liars:

Deobandi’s have greatly relied upon lies of Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s mentioned in their books to paint a rosey image of Deobandis. And attempted to portray image that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) was unwilling to debate the issue with Shaykh Thanvi. But in light of Abhaas e Aakhira, and considering fact; all three had concocted frauds for which they were laid bare I was forced to conclude this Trinity of deception has lied shamelessly and relentlessly. Please note they had invented names of books, content of these books, invented printing presses names, and attributed these fraudulent books to scholars of Ahlus Sunnah including father of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), and cheeky monkeys even invented books and attributed them to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) avenged the honour of his servants and exposed them. All their lives they could not present single copy of each book which they supposedly ‘quoted’ in their own books. Nor they could cite a third Islamic/Deobandi source predating their books in which the name of their ‘referrenced’ book was mentioned nor their ‘referrenced’ content was found in any other book apart from their own.

The End Result Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement:

After years of effort requesting Shaykh Thanvi to debate/discuss the statement when it became evident Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi will not repent nor will agree to discuss/debate the statement in public/private. This resulted in a edict from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in which Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s and Islam of others like him was invalidated. It received wide spread support from scholars of Arabian Peninsula and subcontinent. And it was published 1324H as Hussam al-Hamarayn Ala Munhar il-Kufri Wal Mayn, here. Ever since the controversy has passed on from generation to generation. Scholars from both sides presenting their side of saga.

Then And Now And Our Responsibility:

The brief historical account was mentioned because Deobandis over the internet have shamelessly are presenting their own side as if their founding fathers were flag bearers of code chivalry, ethics, and upstanding morals. Yet the reality of their elders and disgusting ethics and repugnant conduct is published in their books. Anyone brave enough to swim in sea of insults and abuse should read Shaykh Murtaza Hassan books, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s master piece of insults, Al-Shihab al-Saqib. If I recall correctly he insulted Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) near enough three-hundred times. Historical saga, of who said what, who was brave, and who was cowering in fear, is totally irrelevent because the truth of dispute is not dependent upon it. We have inherited the dispute and the material which resulted it, and we also have respective position of both sides in books. And these sources should be used to determine if Shaykh Thanvi was guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or not? And it is in our best interest to judge the dispute correctly from perspective of Sharia.

Dispute Not Just Over Shaykh But Connected To It Is Something Greater:

It should not be and is not about who from both sides is correct. It is truly about upholding the honor of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It is about ensuring Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not disrespected by Muslims who may make similar statements using Shaykh Thanvi’s language as template. It is about protecting the Iman of believers. It is about preventing the disbelievers from insulting Prophet (sallallahu  alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using Shaykh Thanvi’s statement as template and getting away with insulting and disrespecting him after citing Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. And it is about prohibition of; “… la taqulu raina …” (i.e. do not say raina); meaning using words, sentences which can be misconstrued to insult and disrespect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And anyone who doesn’t see it as
such needs to wake-up and smell the coffee and it should refresh his mind.

Judge The Dispute Independent Of People Involved:

Me calling Shaykh Thanvi a Kafir wouldn’t make him if he was not and you calling him Muslim will not make him so if he was not. Nothing can be added to his burden of sin nor to his record of good deeds if he has not earned it during his life except the reward of good and burden of evil Sunnahs instituted by him and followed after him. He and his antagonists have reached their destination and will be judged according to what they have earned and the Sunnahs they left for others to follow because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] This leaves us; if you and I earn good it is for us and if we sin it is our doing. Depending upon evil/good Sunnah we leave behind those who immitate us will earn us reward or sin. So be fair to your self and make your hereafter your priority. Judge the dispute not the people, give verdict due evidence, and not due to people involved. If you have jumped into this controversy then judge truthfully and honestly because your hereafter is at stake and your legacy will earn you reward or sin.


Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1] “For example one should not say; Allah and Messenger would will then so and so will fail. All affairs of world/universe are in accordance with will of Allah. Nothing is done with Messenger’s will. Or if a person says to another; what is in heart/mind of that one. Or when will that-one get married? Or how many leaves are on that three? Or how many stars are in the sky? In Answer to it one should not say; Allah and Messenger know! Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have! And there is no harm in some matter of religion; Allah and Rasool knows! Or in this matter Allah’s and Messenger’s instruction is this because all matters of religion Allah has informed the Messenger. And all people have been instructed to obey their Messenger.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP.]

- [2] It can be said with hundered percent confidence that none from Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted knowledge of Ghayb. And at best from this belief of Muslims; the questioner has implied that we the Muslims believe RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Alim ul-Ghayb. At worst and most likely; Shaykh Thanvi or the alleged questioner deliberately distorted the reality of Islamic belief. It is typical of all Deobandi/Wahhabi scholarship to erect false boggie man and then knock it down to win converts. Consider it modern equivlent of false-flag covert operation designed to lead the listeners to a predetermined conclusion. All a Deobandi has to do is to show me in a book pre-dating Hifz ul-Iman in which title Aalim ul-Ghayb was used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In fact some eight (1311 Hijri) years prior to Hifz ul-Iman Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his; Al Amn Wal Ula Na’at il-Mustafa Dafa ul-Bala stated; it is Makrooh to consider Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Aalim ul-Ghayb. Yet the chief al-Kazzab (i.e. the liar), Shaykh Khalid Mahmood Deobandi, ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan supreme court, unjustly in his booklet titled, Aalim ul-Ghayb, that person who attributed title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah).

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Updated.

Brief Account Of Dispute Surrounding Deobandi Scholar Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi.


Introduction:

Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi authored Hifz ul-Iman in response to three questions. While answering the last question, about Ilm al-Ghayb, he made number of questionable and disrespectful statements hurting the dignity of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The Islamic scholarship of subcontinent challenged him to retract and repent but he refused. Resulting a controversy between his detractors and his supporters which has lasted hundered years.

Shaykh Thanvi And His Disrespectful Statement:

It should be noted Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi believed only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ta’ala) has knowledge of Ghayb and not Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And this belief Shaykh Thanvi shared with Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. In context of this belief Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman (1319H/1901CE) in which he attempts respond request of Fatwah (i.e. edict). Questioner states: “A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Ilm al-Ghayb is bil-Zaat (i.e. of Self), in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. Knower Of Ghayb). And ba-wasta (i.e. bil-Ardh, through means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb[2]. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2,
here] While answering third and last question he made wrote words which at best are questionable. And in their true nature these words are extremely disrespectful and insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

Shaykh Thanvi And His Connections:

Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is the founder of Deobandism and Wahhabism in subcontinent. He can be considered the founding father of all disputes that have plagued the Muslims of subcontinent. He originated the dispute or had laid the foundation of it. He wrote many books but Taqwiyat ul-Iman was considered his legacy and in which he tactfull insulted Prophets and righteous of Ummah. In the mentioned book he wrote: “Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have![1] [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP,
here] Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s Deobandism stemed from Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s teaching. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi drank from the same poisonous cup. As result the two mentioned fruits didn’t fall far from the tree. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi being inheritor of their tradition was no different from his three seniors. And disrespecting and insulting the Prophets and Saliheen in pretext of championing Tawheed has ever since become a distinguishing trait via which they are recognised and a repugnant tradition which the theological descendents of Deobandism have kept alive.

Hifz ul-Iman And Books Related To It, By Shaykh Thanvi:

Hifz ul-Iman was written on 8th of Muharram 1319 Hijri and then ten years later in response to queries of Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi he wrote Bast al-Banan (Sha’ban, 1329 Hijri). In Bast al-Banan Shaykh Thanvi answered the questions posed by Shaykh Darbhangi and resorted presenting Taweel of his statement. Then on 17th of Safar 1342 Hijri in response to a unnamed Maulvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. He agreed statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such that it is difficult to defend against and commoners take it to mean insult. And therefore he accepted the suggestion that statement needs to be modified and unrepentently modified it. Note typically modification of statement is sign of repentence but Shaykh Thanvi wrote in Taghyeer ul-Unwan that he deems statement of Hifz ul-Iman to be blameless but as an act of strategy of war he modified it.

Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement In Perspective Of Islamic And Deobandi Belief:

If prophetic knowledge is equale in quantity to the mentioned then there would be no speciality for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Or if the type of knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses is same as the mentioned then there is no speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Muslims believe and even sane Deobandis would not disbelieve; both in quantity and type of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are unique/special because this is established from Quran/Hadith. If the quantity of prophetic knowledge is greater by inumerable amount. The type of knowledge he has is definitely unique and special. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. To negate speciality and uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in a fashion Shaykh Thanvi did is disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and can only be written for insult/disrespect purposes.

The Reaction To Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement:

When the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah became aware of this insult they protested at the sheer odacity of Shaykh Thanvi. Scholars of Islam directed his attention toward the insulting and the disrespectful meaning of his statement and pointed out implications of his words. They requested that he repent and repeal the statement. And chief amongst them was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, the Imam, the Mujtahid, and Mujadid, Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Their pleas fell on deaf ears and issue was propelled into realm of debate/discussion. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) repeatedly requested Shaykh Thanvi to discuss/debate the statement and repent but his effort was without success.

The End Result Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement:

After years of effort requesting Shaykh Thanvi to debate/discuss the statement when it became evident Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi will not repent nor will agree to discuss/debate the statement in public/private. This resulted in a edict from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in which Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s and Islam of others like him was invalidated. It received wide spread support from scholars of Arabian Peninsula and subcontinent. And it was published 1324H as Hussam al-Hamarayn Ala Munhar il-Kufri Wal Mayn,
here. Ever since the controversy has passed on from generation to generation. Scholars from both sides presenting their side of saga.

Then And Now And Our Responsibility:

The brief historical account was mentioned because Deobandis over the internet have shamelessly are presenting their own side as if their founding fathers were flag bearers of code chivalry, ethics, and upstanding morals. Yet the reality of their elders and disgusting ethics and repugnant conduct is published in their books. Anyone brave enough to swim in sea of insults and abuse should read Shaykh Murtaza Hassan books, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s master piece of insults, Al-Shihab al-Saqib. If I recall correctly he insulted Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) near enough three-hundred times. Historical saga, of who said what, who was brave, and who was cowering in fear, is totally irrelevent because the truth of dispute is not dependent upon it. We have inherited the dispute and the material which resulted it, and we also have respective position of both sides in books. And these sources should be used to determine if Shaykh Thanvi was guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or not? And it is in our best interest to judge the dispute correctly from perspective of Sharia.

Dispute Not Just Over Shaykh But Connected To It Is Something Greater:

It should not be and is not about who from both sides is correct. It is truly about upholding the honor of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It is about ensuring Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not disrespected by Muslims who may make similar statements using Shaykh Thanvi’s language as template. It is about protecting the Iman of believers. It is about preventing the disbelievers from insulting Prophet (sallallahu  alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using Shaykh Thanvi’s statement as template and getting away with insulting and disrespecting him after citing Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. And it is about prohibition of; “… la taqulu raina …” (i.e. do not say raina); meaning using words, sentences which can be misconstrued to insult and disrespect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And anyone who doesn’t see it as such needs to wake-up and smell the coffee and it should refresh his mind.

Judge The Dispute Independent Of People Involved:

Me calling Shaykh Thanvi a Kafir wouldn’t make him if he was not and you calling him Muslim will not make him so if he was not. Nothing can be added to his burden of sin nor to his record of good deeds if he has not earned it during his life except the reward of good and burden of evil Sunnahs instituted by him and followed after him. He and his antagonists have reached their destination and will be judged according to what they have earned and the Sunnahs they left for others to follow. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] This leaves us; if you and I earn good it is for us and if we sin it is our doing. Depending upon evil/good Sunnah we leave behind those who immitate us will earn us reward or sin. So be fair to your self and make your hereafter your priority. Judge the dispute not the people, give verdict due evidence, and not due to people involved. If you have jumped into this controversy then judge truthfully and honestly because your hereafter is at stake and your legacy will earn you reward or sin.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1] “For example one should not say; Allah and Messenger would will then so and so will fail. All affairs of world/universe are in accordance with will of Allah. Nothing is done with Messenger’s will. Or if a person says to another; what is in heart/mind of that one. Or when will that-one get married? Or how many leaves are on that three? Or how many stars are in the sky? In Answer to it one should not say; Allah and Messenger know! Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have! And there is no harm in some matter of religion; Allah and Rasool knows! Or in this matter Allah’s and Messenger’s instruction is this because all matters of religion Allah has informed the Messenger. And all people have been instructed to obey their Messenger.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP,
here]

- [2] It can be said with hundered percent confidence that none from Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted knowledge of Ghayb. And at best from this belief of Muslims; the questioner has implied that we the Muslims believe RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Alim ul-Ghayb. At worst and most likely; Shaykh Thanvi or the alleged questioner deliberately distorted the reality of Islamic belief. It is typical of all Deobandi/Wahhabi scholarship to erect false boggie man and then knock it down to win converts. Consider it modern equivlent of false-flag covert operation designed to lead the listeners to a predetermined conclusion. All a Deobandi has to do is to show me in a book pre-dating Hifz ul-Iman in which title Aalim ul-Ghayb was used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In fact some eight (1311 Hijri) years prior to Hifz ul-Iman Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his; Al Amn Wal Ula Na’at il-Mustafa Dafa ul-Bala stated; it is Makrooh to consider Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Aalim ul-Ghayb. Yet the chief al-Kazzab (i.e. the liar), Shaykh Khalid Mahmood Deobandi, ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan supreme court, unjustly in his booklet titled, Aalim ul-Ghayb, that person who attributed title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah).

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made improvements to translation of Hifz ul-Iman. I noted did not translate an important part ... and some structural modifications were made to ensure it is closer to original Urdu:

  “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]

The underlinned parts were improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.