MuhammedAli

Shaykh Naumani’s Aisa Without Jaisa Argument And Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad.

2 posts in this topic

Introduction:

This article will focus on Deobandi, specificly Shaykh Naumani’s argument; statement of Hifz ul-Iman uses aisa and it is without jaisa therefore it is not for sake of Tashbeeh/comparision. This article present translation of debate between Allama Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Naumani. It was published as, Nusrat Khuda-dad: Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, and it was compiled by Mawlana Muhammad Hamid Shafi. Please note this is Islamic perspective of account and Deobandi account of debate will be also translated.

Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement Subject Of Debate:

Q:“A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Ilm al-Ghayb is bil-Zaat (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. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief? [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2,
here] A: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here]

Allamah Sardar Ahmad’s And Shaykh Naumani’s Positions:

Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and anyone with ability to read Urdu, and not brainwashed in Deobandism, believe statement of Shaykh Thanvi is written comparatively because aisa (i.e. like-this) in context of the statement is of Tashbeeh/comparision. And knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with detestable creations mentioned in the statement. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of insulting of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is of belief that aisa in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is not of Tashbeeh because Shaykh Thanvi did not use jaisa (i.e. like-it, like of, like) but it is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much). Also Shaykh Naumani believes IF statement of Hifz ul-Iman was as Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) believes it is then he too would consider it insulting and Kufr.

Allamah Ahmad’s Speech With Aisa And Jaisa:

Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman has divided Ilm al-Ghayb into two categories. Qull Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. all hidden knowledge): From which not one thing is excluded (it is Qull Ilm al-Ghayb). And second is Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. some hidden knowledge); however little it maybe (it would still be Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb). Then for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he stated Qull Ilm al-Ghayb is intellectually and evidentially wrong. Now (Qull Ilm al-Ghayb) is no longer an option for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) except Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb; regarding which he said clearly that: ‘… then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e. scorpions, owls, donkey, etc) …’[01] Therefore the meaning of the statement is clearly evident that jaisa ilm (i.e. knowledge like-of) honorable Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses; aisa (knowledge) every child, every lunatic, in fact all animals, quadrupeds possess’s. Every Muslim is aware in this cursed statement Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge has been disrespected.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 197/198,
here.]

Shaykh Naumani’s First Rebuttle - Aisa Is Without Jaisa:


“You have stated that meaning of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is; jaisa knowledge of Ghayb is possessed by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa is possessed by every insane, in fact all animals, quadrupeds. حاشا و كلا. If this is the meaning of the statement even then I would consider the statement to be Kufr because in it would be clear insult of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). But this is not the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman because in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman the word jaisa has not been used. This word (jaisa) you add to (the statement of Hifz ul-Iman) yourself. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman word used is aisa not jaisa. Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib neither reason nor honesty has come near you yet. When reason and honesty was being distributed then I think you was sleeping. Enemy of reason in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman where is jaisa? Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is as follows: if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …’ If in this statement jaisa was used then it would have been as follows: ‘Jaisa Ghayb knowledge is possessed by RasoolAllah (salallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa is also possessed by Zayd, Umar, every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds.’ This (statement with jaisa); it would have been according to me; and in fact according to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib also, there would have been definate disrespect and derogration.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 199/200, here.]

Allamah Ahmad’s First Rebuttle -: Aisa With/Without Jaisa Means Same:

“All praises are for Allah! Maulvi Manzoor Sahib has attested to my position. But in fact by presenting Thanvi Sahid he has certified my claim. My claim was; Hifz ul-Iman’s meaning is unclean and one who believes it is out of Islam and is from those who degrade’s the grand status and is disrespecter of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Maulvi (Naumani) Sahib and (Shaykh) Thanvi Sahib has explicitly stated the same. This is confessional statement: … (poetical line not translated) … Honorable listenters listen carefully. Maulvi Manzoor Sahib is saying that according to Maulvi Ahsraf Ali Thanvi Sahib in the following statement there is insult and subject is impure: ‘Jaisa knowledge of Ghayb matters; is of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa is of every child and every insane but in fact every animal and every quadruped possesses.’ Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s unclean statement is as follows on which the dispute is based on: if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e.calf, ownl donkey etc) …’ People of justice should focus on the fact that Hifz ul-Iman’s statement subject/meaning is same which Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is declaring to be impure in his Bast al-Banan. Arguing over the word usage is not way of people of knowledge (when the meaning is exactly the same). By ignoring argument based on word play every person will be compelled to agree the meaning of both statement is in total agreement and in them there is no disagreement in meaning. In both sentences same meaning has been conveyed. For example one person says: ‘Jaisa face is of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi aisa face is of an owl and donkey.’ Second person says: ‘This face of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi; what is so special about it; aisa face is also of an owl and donkey.’ Every intelligent and justice peferring Deobandi-Wahhabi would said the meaning of these two statements is exactly same. And in both (statements) insult Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Even though in the first statement word aisa and jaisa both have been employed. And in the second only aisa is used but not jaisa. In this fashion Hifz ul-Iman’s filthy statement and Bast al-Banan’s unclean statement’s meaning is same. Even though Hifz ul-Iman’s statement uses word aisa and not jaisa. And in Bast al-Banan’s statement aisa and jaisa both are present[02]. Ever after this much explanation one yet does not comprehend the insult in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and to decieve the Muslims say that in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman word used is aisa and not jaisa therefore there is no insult. Then (it has to be said) he is sworn enemy of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and avowed ally of Shaykh Thanvi. For him (a statement of) aisa with absence of jaisa establishes insult of Shaykh Thanvi but it does not occur to him that the word aisa is used without jaisa. Yet for him (statement of Shaykh Thanvi) must have combination of aisa and jaisa for it to be insult of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And if there is no jaisa (in the statement) but only aisa then there is no insult.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 202/204, here.]

Shaykh Naumani’s Second Rebuttle -: You’re Inserting Jaisa Into Hifz ul-Iman:


“Why do you add the word jaisa into statement of Hifz ul-Iman to create the meaning of disrespect. See the statement is completely free of blame:if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …’[03] For you there is no room to embellish (statement of Hifz ul-Iman). The meaning conveyed in Hifz ul-Iman exactly the same meaning has been stated in your Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah) books. But what cure do I have for (your) immodesity and shamelessness!” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 208, here.]

Allamah Ahmad’s Second Rebuttle: Example Of Aisa Insulting Without Jaisa:

Honorable Maulvi! During my earlier speech I had quite clearly/detailedly established that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting even if jaisa is absent and there is only aisa but you did not respond to my that point/speech. Instead you repeated what was already refuted. This is clear proof of your (attempt) to avoid (the subject matter). I will give another example in support of my claim. (If) a person says this: ‘What is so special about baaz knowledge of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi; aisa knowledge is even possessed by insane, and animals, and donkeys.’ If any Deobandi says in response to it that in this statement Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is being insulted because the meaning of statement is; jaisa knowledge Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi possesses aisa knowledge is also possessed by insane, animals, donkeys. And the one who made the statement says in this statement word aisa has been used not jaisa . You’re unnecesserily adding the word jaisa into the statement to make the statement insulting. Will the Deobandis accept his Taweel? And if not, and (you will) definitely will not (accept this Taweel). Then why do you invent this Taweel for filthy statement of Hifz ul-Iman? A (Taweel) which is not even acceptable to you. Wahhabis! The truth of matter is in your heart there is no respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so that you understand insult (of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 210/211, here.]

Shaykh Naumani’s Third Rebuttle: Aisa In Meaning Of Itna And Is-Qadr:

“In statement of Hifz ul-Iman aisa is not used for comparision. In this statement if aisa was used for sake of comparision then I would also attest that Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being disrespected and therefore it is Kufr. But aisa in this statement has been used in meaning of itna and is-qadr. Meaning aisa (as itna) is for stating quantity. Famous Urdu poet Ameer Meenahi in his popular book, Ameer ul-Lughat, vol two, page 302, presents his research on aisa saying: Aisa (meaning) itna, is-qadr. Sentence; ‘aisa mara ad mowa kar deeya. And; Us badah kash ka jism heh aisa lateef wa saaf, zana par ghumah heh moj sharab ka.’ (poet; Barq). After this he presents three more meanings of aisa for which there is no need. In addition to this, people of (Urdu) language consistently in their usage say; ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.’ May Allah forgive! Is the intention to compare power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with power of another? In the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman), like it, word aisa has not been used for comparision but in this statement the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and is-qadr. Yes, aisa is also used for comparision but for it word jaisa is needed. And because in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman word aisa is present and not jaisa therefore in it aisa is not for comparision. By introducing word jaisa into (statement of Hifz ul-Iman) you have given proof of your dubious (character). And provided evidence for being a looser and distorter.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 213/214,
here.]

Allamah Ahmad’s Third Rebuttle: Aisa, Itna And Jaisa And Hifz ul-Iman:

“You have wasted your time in giving few meanings of word aisa. What was the need for this? Who says that word aisa is only used in meaning of comparision. Every Urdu speaker/literate (person) knows that aisa sometimes is used for comparision, some places to inform of quantity, and in some places for admiration/praise. Here the debate is over, only on point, in which meaning word aisa has been used in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. I say that in this statement aisa is for comparision and you say here the word aisa is for mention of quantity; meaning (you say) aisa is in meaning of itna and is-qadr. And I say insult (of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) still remains. (Not only that) but has become even more clear and obvious. Listen to this I will read (statement of) Hifz ul-Iman: if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); (aisa in meaning of) itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e.calf, ownl donkey etc) …’ Now every Urdu literate/speaker, should get verdict (literally; fatwah) from his heart (which is full) of faith, that in this (statement); is there disprespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Now the meaning of this statement is clearly that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is itna (in quantity) jitna (i.e. as-much) as children, insane, animals, and quadrupeds. It is speciality of Wahhabi sect that (they) clearly disrespect the eminence of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and abuse (him) to their heart content. You made Taweel to avoid and protect (from charge of) Kufr. Yet due to your Taweel the disrespect has become more evident. All this is display of your shameless Wahhabism. It seems Kufr is in love with Wahhabism. Now remains your sentence: ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.’ In it rightly word aisa is not for comparision but what connection does this statement has got with statement of Hifz ul-Iman? This (example of yours) is not like-example (of statement of Hifz ul-Iman where aisa is used) but Hifz ul-Iman’s like-example would be like; if a disrespectful and mannerless person like your Thanvi Sahib says: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute power to holy being of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this power; all powers are zaati and atahi, or baaz; if baaz powers are intended; then in this what is so unique about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); aisi powers are even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if qull powers are intended then this is intellectually and textually false because Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) power is zaati not atahi power.’ Tell me in this statement aisa is for comparision or not? Your honor has invented a new principle;  until aisa is not with word jaisa it will not be for comparision, and there will be no comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with of infants, lunatics, animals, qaudrupeds, until jaisa is part of it) nor there will be disrespect. You seem to be ignorant of Urdu phraselogy. Firstly tell me who has written this principle (and where)? Secondly even if your point is taken on board then for asia to be of comparision jaisa is lafzi qarina: (A matter of principle is) when word of comparision is omitted even then meaning of comparision remains. As an example if someone says:’Zaid shey’r heh.’[04] (Meaning would be:) ‘Zaid Shey’r jaisa bahadur heh.’[05] How can the meaning of comparision can be negated when lafz qarina is omitted (because jaisa can be justifiably assumed into meaning of statement as demonstrated in example). It could be that instead of jaisa there maybe another qarina of comparision and there is in this statement. Meaning negation of speciality (of prophetic Ghayb knowledge and of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and affirmation of partnership (of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds in baaz knowledge of Ghayb).[06] Thirdly principle/president of your seminary of Deobandi Maulvi Hussain Ahmad on page 111 of his book al-Shihab as-Saqib regarding the same unclean statement wrote: “… word aisa is utterance of comparision …”[07] You stated word aisa without jaisa is not of comparision and yet president of your (seminary of) Deoband is saying that in this statement aisa is of comparision. Even though there is no jaisa. So tell out of you two who is a liar and who is truthful? Fourthly if a person says: ‘Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi knowledge; aisa is of animals and quadrupeds.’ In this aisa is of comparision or not? If it is (of comparision) then according to what rule/principle it is (not) so? And in this is there insult directed toward Maulvi Ashraf Ali or not? If you say there is (insult directed toward Shaykh Thanvi) then in this (sentence) there is aisa without jaisa. And if you say no (there is not insult) then do you give permission (to us) that (we) publish regarding Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi similar statements? Will you and any other Deoband will not find it displeasing? You say that: ‘If in this statement aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be disrespect for Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and therefore it is Kufr.’[08] And yet principle of your (seminary of) Deoband says that aisa is for comparision like it has already (been proven). Listen to another; on page 113 of Shahab al-Saqib it is stated: “Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.”[09] Be just; you say that if aisa in the statement is of comparision it would be insulting and Kufr and your principle (of seminary of) Deoband is saying that aisa is of comparision. The understanding (of aisa) which principle of Deoband is stating according to this reason you accepted Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is Kafir.[10] Say Maulvi Manzoor what is your opinion (regarding this)? […] (7) Sign this transcript: ‘If baaz knowledge is intended then in this what is so special about Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi? Aisa (in meaning of itna and is-qadr) knowledge is possessed by Zaid, Amr, in fact every infant, lunatic, in fact all animals and quadrupends.’[Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 215/219, here.]

Shaykh Naumani’s Fourth Rebuttle: Aisa Without Jaisa Is Insulting Shaykh Thanvi:

“My faith is that one who insults my master (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is certainly Kafir. You have in this turn employed insulting words for Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib: ‘Aisa knowledge of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib is also possessed by animals and quadrupeds.’ Any person who utters words like this against the dignity of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi such (person) is insulter and should get his head examined. […] And the example which you gave me signing for Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, it is extremely disrespectful of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib.  One who insults Maulana Thanvi Sahib in this manner such person is an idiot and ignorant.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 220/221,
here.]

Allamah Ahmad’s Fourth Rebuttle:

“You have repeatedly claimed Hifz ul-Iman’s state is free of blame. This sentence of yours is not answer to all of my (seven) questions nor you saying this will make it blameless. First you claimed if aisa is without jaisa then (aisa) is not for comparision. I refuted your this point and proved in presence of this gathering that aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is of comparision and in it is clear insult and disrespect of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in order to decieve the public you did not openly acknowledge it. Now when I gave example of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib (in a statement which was) with aisa but without jaisa then you was (and) in fact the entire group of people with you (on podium) is in distress. Even though in this example word is aisa and with it not is word jaisa. Here you do not listen/accept any excuse and nor you remember/employ (your) rule of aisa without jaisa. What’s the reason? Matter is that you and your entire sect of Wahhabism has founded faith on Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi (and not on Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[11] For this reason you and in fact entire sect of Wahhabism does not tolerate insult of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi for even a minute but for holy honour of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) you and your sect of Wahhabism’s leaders have published abundant of insults and disrespects and abuse. These you did not find displeasing. In order to decieve the attendees of meeting you outwardly say that one who insults Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir. Is this edict of yours for others? Can your leaders direct insults toward illuminated Hadhoor, intercessor of day of gathering (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as they wish?Can they disrespect (him), disparage him for them is not (is this teaching of yours)? I wish your heart had even spec worth of faith then today you would not have defended one who has insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). At one instance you say one who insults the blessed soil of purified Madinah is Kafir and then in another instance you say; a person who says knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is of mad (people), animals, quadrupeds; you consider him to be your mentor and leader. Give up this double standard and repent.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 222/223, here.]

Conclusion:


In the first turn, Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) employed jaisa while explaining the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In first rebuttle Shaykh Naumani objected to usage of aisa arguing addition of jaisa turns the statement of Shaykh Thanvi to statement of comparision. In his first rebuttle Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) replied addition of jaisa while explaining the statement of Hifz ul-Iman does not change its meaning. And then he went to quote form statement of Hifz ul-Iman with addition of jaisa and also quoted the original statement of Hifz ul-Iman with aisa. And appealed to common sense of people to decide if both statements mean the same or not. In addition he formed a stated with jaisa regarding Shaykh Thanvi and similar meaning statement with aisa to demonstrate aisa without jaisa is of Tashbeeh and insult is implied. To which, as par Sunni account of debate, Shaykh Naumani did not reply in the following rebuttle. In the second rebuttle Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) again formed statements of aisa without jaisa which were insulting Shaykh Thanvi to lure Shaykh Naumani into his pre-planned trap. And in his fourth rebuttle Shaykh Naumani rather stupidly went on to confirm statement of Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) even with, aisa and without jaisa, is insulting Shaykh Thanvi. With this confession Shaykh Naumani undermined entire basis of his defence argument. In the third rebuttle of Shaykh Naumani he attempted to capitalise on the fact that aisa without jaisa can be used in various meanings. And since there is no jaisa one is without justification to insert it in the text of Hifz ul-Iman. In third rebuttle of Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) he argued absence of jaisa is not proof of its absence. He argued with examples in which aisa is used but not jaisa yet implications of the statement are explained with usage of jaisa. In other words jaisa is omitted but is supposed into text when aisa statement is explained. It is similar to writing, harf akhir, yet it is read as harf -e- akhir, point is if hamza (i.e. pronounced as, ay) is omitted from writing it is supposed to be assumed into text. When the statement is of Tashbeeh due to usage of aisa then jaisa is to be read into original text . He also went on to argue negation of speciality of one over another can only be if x is compared with z and conclusion arrived is; one is not better over the other -; in other words Tashbeeh can be implied from context. And we find statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such a statement in which speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated hence the jaisa aspect can definitely be established from statement even though its omitted. At the end of third rebuttle Allama Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) presented to Shaykh Naumani statement, where aisa was used without inclusion of jaisa, which he wanted Shaykh Naumani to attest as sign of agreement but Shaykh Naumani refused to sign the agreement stating it is insulting Shaykh Thanvi. Yet he could not agree to this and invented out of thin air rule, aisa without jaisa is not of Tashbeeh, but he did not and could not apply the same for his Shaykh Thanvi. Lastly Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Madani, who was senior and teacher of Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani considered statement of Shaykh Thanvi statement of Tashbeeh even though it was without jaisa. The discussion between Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Naumani establishes from linguistical principles point view that statement of Shaykh Thanvi is of comparision. And therefore it is insulting and Kufr and one who believes it and defends it is after correct knowledge regarding it has been imparted to him/her regarding it then if such a person continues to defend it is Kafir.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNote:

- [01] I have reason to believe Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) did not insert these but rather these words were inserted by compiler to give example of what is included in each category. After reading the account number of times I have not noted any protest from Shaykh Naumani. And if these were the words of Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) at very least Shaykh Naumani would have mentioned them at the very least once. If Shaykh Naumani can cry foul over addition of jaisa while explaining statement of Hifz ul-Iman this would have been greater cause for crying foul. Due to this I am confident these are insertions of compiler and therefore the statements should be read without words in brackets.

- [02] The statement Muhadith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is pointing to is what Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi referrenced to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) Hussam ul-Haramayn; it uses aisa and jaisa. And it’s translation is being quoted: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22,
here.]

- [03] The complier of debate Mawlana Muhammad Hamid al-Shafi did not quote the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Yet the Urdu sentence and its translated form indicates it was quoted hence it is being inserted into text. Also if quote is not inserted then Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) speech does not connect to Shaykh Naumani’s 2nd rebuttle. Implication of which is statement is without jaisa therefore no insult.

- [!] It seems Sunni compiler of debate deliberately omitted insults of Shaykh Naumani directed toward Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). In Deobandi account of debate Shaykh Naumani used aisa phrased statements to insult Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and admitted even though statement is without jaisa it is still insulting. Whatever the reason for omission the confession is being quoted from Deobandi account of debate. Please note in Sunni debate account Shaykh Naumani’s insults directed toward Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) are omitted but the confession that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is mentioned in fourth rebuttle of Shaykh Naumani.

- [04] Translates to: ‘Zaid is lion.’

- [05] Translates to: ‘Zaid is corageous like a lion.’

- [06] In simple words; Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in having knowledge of Ghayb because he said knolwedge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed by other creations. For him to negate the speciality he had to compare the the type and quantity of Ghuyub known to both parties (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam VS Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds) and after comparing and reaching conclusion knowledge of both parties is equale and of same type he could negate speciality of prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

- [07] “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282,
here.]

- [08] The closest to what Mawlana Sardar Ahmad attributed to Shaykh Naumani is following -: found in beginning of third rebuttle: ‘In this statement if aisa was used for sake of comparision then I would also attest that Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being disrespected and therefore it is Kufr.’ I assume Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) was just conveying the meaning. And it is expected that it would be difficult to remember everything and quote verbatim. Or even if Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Naumani verbatim the compiler has conveyed the meaning of what Shaykh Naumani said.

- [09] “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “…if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283,
here.]

- [10] The conclusion of Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) does not follow/agree with what he established. It is illogical to conclude that Shaykh Madani wrote it is for comparision and conclude Shaykh Naumani agrees that Shaykh Thanvi is Kafir. More logical and rational conclusion would have been: ‘Shaykh Madani understands the statement of Hifz ul-Iman in sense of Tashbeeh/comparision and his understanding of statement according to you (i.e. Shaykh Naumani) is Kufr therefore Shaykh Madani guilty of Kufr according to you.’ Or he could have modified the last part and ended it with a question: ‘Shaykh Madani understands the statement of Hifz ul-Iman in sense of Tashbeeh/comparision and his understanding of statement according to you (i.e. Shaykh Naumani) is Kufr. Now my question to you is: Is Shaykh Madani guilty of Kufr/Kafir?’ If Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) made the statement he made mistake. But I believe he did not because his scholarly credentials and his calibre of scholarship was too high for this amatur blunder. This is only place where I find myself disagreeing with Mawlana Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) understanding/conclusion.

- [11] Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) has implied that Shaykh Naumani and his clan of Deobandis has based their faith in Islam due to accepting Shaykh Thanvi as Prophet of Allah (subanahu wa ta’ala) and not on basis of believing Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

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.