MuhammedAli

Munazra nahin sirf sharait teh huwi hen . Munazra nahin hoga.

Bump.

? ??

Responding To Arguments Supporting Phrase - One Day I Will Die And Mix Into Dust - In Article: “Abu Hasan Barelwi Commits Taḥrif Right ...” Introduction: (i) A certain Abu Hassan wrote book titled, The Killer Mistake, in response to article authored by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller titled -: Iman, Kufr, And Takfir, here. Abu Hassan attempts to bring to light explicitly Kufr including certain repugnant, disrespectful, insulting, and degrading language employed by senior Deobandi scholarship which was targeting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In a section of his book Abu Hassan attempts to address Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s problematic statement, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust), out of many in order to demonstrate seriousness of issues which Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller downplayed. A Deobandi WordPress blog dedicated sharing lies, distortions, and Dajjals deceptions produced by their scholarship responded to Abu Hasan and bickered in typical Deobandi style, here. This article is mainly a response to Dajjal’s warehouse on this controversial statement. As a side note I will look into content produced by Abu Hassan on statement, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). 0.0 - How Cookie Will Crumble, Foreshadowing OF Things To Come: (i) I have reason to believe article I am responding to article written by a Deobandi, Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman. (ii) There will be places where I stoop bit low and share name calling throne exclusively copyrighted by Deoband’s Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Tandvi. Such language used by me in places is being used as BAIT and to demonstrate game played by Deobandism so please TOLERATE them. I will explain why the need to stoop low as Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Tandvi just near the end of this article. IF suspense is killing you and you’ve no good-opinion about me than read entire 21.0/22.0 to understand the game plan but I advise that you be patient until you get to that part through natural progression. This way you will go through a range of emotions, anger, disappointment, hurt, and judgmental: This guy is so toxic, unacademic, crude, disgusting … how can he be writing about Islam, and other negative attitude would have developed. Than you will get to the punch line explaining everything and than you will have to make decision. (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.” [Ref: Q9:73] “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating (in prayer), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their …” [Ref: Q48:29] (iv) I will entertain everything written by Mullah Zameel and respond to it as needed. In last stage a decisive evidence will be presented to demonstrate Shaykh Dehalvi used intended literal obvious natural meaning of phrase, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). The truth will be delivered with help of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and his Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Until than I will humour the Mullah Khohta when and as needed. 1.0 - Shaykh Thanvi Transmits Deliberate Use OF Insulting Language: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a senior scholar of Deobandi movement and their pride and joy in his Arwa e Salasa has recorded Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi as saying following about contents of Taqwiyat ul-Iman: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is Tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were of Shirk Khafi (hidden Shirk) I have stated them as (Shirk) Jalli (i.e. Clear/major Shirk). Due to these reasons I fear publishing of this will definitely lead to strife. IF I were to stay here than I would have lectured over these topics systematically over eight to ten years but my intention is to go for Hajj and upon returning from there I have plans for Jihad. Due to this I am unable to do this and I see no other will take this weight/responsibility. Hence I have written this book and there will be strife due to it but my expectation is that after fighting strife all will sort themselves out - this is my opinion. IF you persons opinion is in support of publishing it than it will be published otherwise it will be destroyed.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] Word Tayz has following dictionary meanings: “(1) Sharp edged, (2) harsh; mean; stern, irritated, (3) extremely powerful … (4) fast, quick, (5) sly, alert, intelligent, (6) ill-mannered, angry, (7) sturdy, strong, (8) extreme, harsh, (9) dominant, superior, (10) hot, (11) active, ready/prepared, (12) corrupt/discord-creator, show-off. […] someone who has eyes for detail, or one who has capability of seeing ahead … (17) emotional, ill-tempered/fiery-tempered (18) expensive, unattainable.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lughat, Page 403, here.] Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi employed ill-mannered language and presented minor Shirk as major Shirk, and as a result he knew there will be Fitna amongst Muslims of subcontinent but expected everything will be ALL-OK eventually. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is confessing to wrong doing - using ill-mannered language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Who do we believe - Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi or Deobandi Mullahs portraying his wrong doing as ALL-OK? 1.1 - Sheep Pen Full Yet Not An Ounce Worth Intelligence In Between: (i) What is shocking is that none present in the gathering enquired of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi: Shaytan when ALL-OK status is achieved will ill-mannered language employed in Taqwiyat ul-Iman turn to good manners? Will the distortion of Shirk minor into major Shirk in Taqwiyat ul-Iman correct by itself? Why are you knowingly and willingly unleashing a Fitna upon Muslims? None of senior Deobandi scholarship showed any concern about what was about to be unleashed upon Muslims of Indian subcontinent and nor considered potentially monstrous consequences. All unanimously voted to publish Taqwiyat ul-Iman as it was penned by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, with ill-mannered language and extremism. Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was afraid of such Uqabir/Aaimah: “Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "I only fear for my Ummah from the misguiding A'immah." He said that the Messenger of Allah said: "There will never cease to be a group from my Ummah ..." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2229, here.] (ii) None thought that a prominent Shaykh using ill-mannered language about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other revered personalities might encourage readers to use these ill-mannered words because Shaykh Dehalvi has used them. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “In Taqwiyat ul-Iman in some places those harsh/sakht words were employed, those then were cure for the ignorance of (people that belonged to that) period. Like in Quran Majeed against those who believed Isa (alayhis salam) as an Ilah … but present the habit of some (people) is that they employ these words without need; this is without doubt bay-adabi (lacking-respect) and gustakhi (insult).” [Ref: Imdad ul-Fatwa, Volume5, Page389, here.] No sense hit them on the teeth about danger of presenting minor Shirk as major Shirk. They all knew this is gross distortion of Islamic teachings regarding Shirk and an evil Biddah/Sunnah and despite it took no action. (iii) Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “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 theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Those who came after them filled in shoes of these evil men and likewise showed nothing sort of concern and cycle has continued ever since. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi authored Taqwiyat ul-Iman, those who voted to publish it with ill-mannered language and distortion of Islamic teaching of Shirk, those defend ill-mannered language, and those who accept it as legitimate, valid, polite, respectful language are all equally responsible in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 2.0 - Recommended Readings Directly Related To Controversial Statement: IF you’re not already aware about the subject matter I strongly advise to begin with reading articles in order of links provided in this section. In response to my article on the controversial statement, here, a die hard supporter of Deobandism attempted protect Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and attempted to portray disrespect and insult directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) blameless. In response to which he received a kick on his snout, here, and Deobandi blog’s author is about to receive his share too. It will be decisive/concrete evidence establishing mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is on its apparent literal meaning, 22.0 onwards. 3.0 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Problematic Statement In Urdu And English: “ … 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. 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 88, Urdu] Literal, apparent, obvious, first to smack reader in the face meaning of words, and 99.99999% Urdu speakers will translate and understand Shaykh Dehalvi’s words as: “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) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die. 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 88, Urdu] Other 00.00001% who may manage to suppress and shove their innate understanding of controversial statement in deepest recesses of their consciousness and after much coaching might without guilt manage to naturally understand it as, I will one day die (and) meet with dust, or something similar in meaning. Their hearts know truth about unmolested untaught meaning of this statement but their tongues and pens lie. It is this knowledge due to which they will never themselves use this language about Prophets, and Saliheen. 4.0 - Mullah Zameel Doing What Deobandis Do Best: “In Taqwiyat al-Īmān (p. 88) of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, we find the following passage: LINK. The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān firstly quotes a ḥadīth (from Mishkāt, Sunan Abī Dāwūd). The ḥadīth is as follows: … (Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2140, Badhl al-Majhūd, 8:75) The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary: ‘Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only for the Holy Being that never dies. It is realized from this ḥadīth that prostration is not made to anyone living or dead, nor to a grave or a site, because whoever is living will one day die and whoever died was once living & held within the confines of human-ness. When he then dies, he does not become God. He remains only a slave.’ (Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 88) The Prophet asked: “What do you suppose, if you were to pass by my grave would you prostrate to it?” The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān explains this question and the subsequent warning as follows: “Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to?” “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave. This is clearly stated as one of its meanings in authoritative Urdu dictionaries. According to Fayrūz-ul-Lughāt, p. 1203: LINK. As stated, one of the meanings of the idiom “to put into contact with soil” is: “to bury”. The same is found in Nūr-ul-Lughāt, vol. 4 p. 487: LINK. In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī …” 4.1 - Mullah Zameel Caught Red Handed: (i) Mullah Dalal writes: “… so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to?” “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave. This is clearly stated as one of its meanings …” How desperate one has to be to knowingly mistranslate words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? To begin with mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust), does not convey meaning of as mein bi aik din mar kar mitti say milnay wala hoon (one day after death I will come into contact with dust). Mullah did not have the academic integrity to translate the idiom on its apparent literal, common parlance (i.e. Urf Aam) meaning instead he translated it according Taweel of word mein. (ii) Despite Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi advancing mein’s Taweel he acknowledges: “Mitti mein milnay kay do mani hen, aik ye kay mitti ho kar, mitti zameen kay sath khalt ho jaway, jaisay sab ishya zameen mein parr kar, khaq ho kar, zameen hi ban jaati hen.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] Which means: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings, one (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth.” Something which Mullah does not mention. Why? (iii) For now Shaykh Gangohi’s acknowledgment is consequential and it requires Shar’ri evidence to demand a just verdict. Shar’ri evidence based argument against phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is in sections 8.1 to 8.2, please look into it. (iv) Shaykh Gangohi’s second meaning ascribed to phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) is Taweel based and is source on which Mullah Zameel based his translation will be addressed in it’s right place. It was addressed in 16.0 to 16.6. 4.2 – Truth Came From Barelwism.WP And AskImam.Org And Lie Is Exposed: Mullah Zameel you’re not getting away with this crime. Mullah actually copied entire Fatwa from AskImam onto Barelwism WordPress. Readers please visit following Scribd to see screen images of AskImam and BarelwismWP, here. There your eyes will behold, the apparent, literal, common parlance (i.e. Urf Aam) translation of phrase mein bi aik din mein bi mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). I quote Mufti Ibrahim Desai’s (Deobandi) translation of controversial statement: “… wherein he interpreted the words of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam to mean: … “I will also die and mix in sand one day.” If Ḥadhrat Moulānā Shāh Ismāῑl …” I had to remove Urdu text. IF you like please visit, here and here directly and see it on the original websites. Mullah Zameel was telling you it means: “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave.” Liars can never tell perfect lie and this Mullah is no good at it. Shaykh Desai translated it on it’s apparent literal meaning which every reader of original Urdu statement will understand and than proceeded to argue his Taweel which is same. 5.0 - Let There Be Judge Between Us – Ask Urdu Speaking Public Challenge: Someone would say: Muhammed Ali you’re biased too. How can we put our trust in what you say when you’re saying Mullah Khohta should not be trusted. You have no reason to especially when I am a commoner VS. Mullah Khohta but I have solution. (iii) Find any Urdu speaker. (1) You ask him/her what do these words mean: mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust)? You do not need to share, who wrote it, or about whom or controversy around it, just plain old innocent question. You want to your source of information to be neutral. Ninety-five to ninety-eight percent Urdu speakers have no knowledge regarding controversy surrounding these words. This includes over-whelming majority claiming Deobandi, or Sunni label. For sake of investigation you do not approach anyone ascribing to Deobandi, or Sunni (Barelwi) label. This will earn you neutral, and unbiased insight about this controversial statement. I have done this research with tens of people and I have got nothing except same. In other words, one day I will die and mix into dust. IF you want to broaden the research please ask this question as well: (2) Do the words mein bi aik din mitti mein milna/milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) means the same as, mein bi aik din mitti say milna/milnay wala hoon (one day I will after death come into contact with dust)? And IF you really want to get into it than also ask: (3) Do the words mein bi aik din mitti mein milna/milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) mean same as, mein bi aik din dafnaya janay wala hoon (One day I will too be buried). Furthermore enquire: (4) Suppose in dictionaries IF mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) means to be buried than is it acceptable to say about someone’s death and burial as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala/walay apni jaga pounch gaya/gay (one/those who die and mixes into dust has/have reached his/their destination)? Furthermore inquire: (5) IF words mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) were employed about burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would they be polite referrence to his burial or disrespectful and insulting? The very last: (6) IF we were prohibited in Quran to use words which could be distorted to insult and which could actually be dishonouring the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would you consider mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) these type of prohibited words? 5.1 - One JOOTA Each Answer Contradicting Muslim Stance As My Punishment: (i) We Muslims have argue: ‘Natural, obvious, literal, apparent meaning of controversial part of statement is to mix into dust/soil and this is the meaning 99.99% Urdu speakers will gravitate toward. And even those who look into dictionary and see other meanings will FIND the usage of phrase repugnant and insulting.’ (ii) IF you do your research, 100 persons. When it is established a quarter goes against what Muslims have argued against Deobandis than you contact me via private message or on my UK mobile, +44 7707 333 278. I will take one JOOTA/shoe smack on my head for each answer that undermined stance represented by Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammat without retaliation. I will not demand you submit me evidence that you carried out research. I will take your word as the TRUTH. Optional: IF your research supports Muslim stance against Deobandis than FIND Mullah Khohta and deliver potential 125 JOOTA smacks on his head. (iii) IF Mullah Zameel offers a counter challenge saying he will happily get JOOTA smacked on his head IF his position is undermined. I will carry out this research using the above six questions and record this investigation and upload it on YouTube. What I do also assure you I will not be smacking him with JOOTA’S due to results of public investigation. I will leave it upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to exact His revenge and punish Mullah Zameel. All I want him to do is to demonstrate his confidence in his stance. IF someone else does the same research and he earns the right to rain JOOTA’S on Mullah’s head than I am not part of it. 5.2 – Another Less Demanding Truth Finding Challenge To Mullah: (i) Mullah why don’t you and I write names five UK immigrant population dense cities on paper and throw them into a box. Give box a good shake. Grab a random individual and ask him to draw one chit out. We both head to that city with our cameras and hit busy shopping area frequented by Indian, Pakistani Muslim community. Take a dice, roll it, to ensure our selection of people we question is at random and to ensure you/I have not lined up coached individuals to represent Deobandi, or Sunni (Barelwi) positions. We inquire about statement in dispute between Muslims and Deobandis, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). We can both arrange a number between 25/50 persons we can investigate and than upload our recordings on YouTube. (ii) I have 100% confidence there will not be a single person who will say it means, mar kar mitti say milnay wala (one who after death come into contact with dust). There is no doubt in my mind; every single person will say, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, conveys meaning of one whom is to die and mix into dust. (iii) NO Deobandi Mullah worth academic salt will agree to what I have purposed and IF someone does it will be conditioned by impossible qualifiers to avoid engaging in a joint investigation. They are all aware FALSEHOOD they support and know such would be exercise in Deobandism’s very public humiliation. This joint public investigation will expose deception game Deobandi scholarship has been engaged in. What I expect is MUNAZRA challenge on par with subcontinent standards. I demonstrate what mean in a parable: All out pub brawl between scantly dressed drunk women ending upon no clothes equivalent. For a ego they expose themselves as idiots and shameless. 6.0 - Addressing Mitti Mein Milnay Translated As IF It Is, Mitti Say Milnay: (i) Mullah Khohta translates controversial Taqwiyat ul-Iman statement: “The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary: ‘Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only for the …” Mullah Zameel is insinuating words, mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) mean mitti say milna/milaana (come into contact with soil and to make someone come into contact with soil). This made me chuckle. (ii) The dictionary references he quoted are not directly referencing, mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil), instead are referencing a closer meaning idiom mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) which is not problematic. (iii) Two dictionaries he employed to justify his claimed meaning (i.e. burial in grave) none has stated mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) means/should be understood as/is alternative of mitti say milnay wala (come into contact with soil), here and here. IF mein was in meaning of say than why no linguist ever made this connection? Considering linguists have recorded both idioms mitti mein/say milna (to mix into soil/to touch soil) mean burial of dead in grave so why not this Taweeli nugget of BAKWAS that mitti mein (in soil) should be understood as mitti say milna (to touch soil)? (iv) Reason is simple because one is used expression of insult, disrespect and degradation while other is respectful and polite hence linguists would not put the two in same bowl. One is, and other is: (1) You’re Paki. VS. You’re Pakistani. (2) You’re born out of wedlock hence you are not entitled to inheritance. VS. You’re bastard hence you’re not entitled to inheritance. 6.1 - Mullah’s Dishonesty - Selecting Furthest Over Closest Idiom To Hide Truth: (i) Words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used mitti mein milnay closest are referrence is, mitti mein mil jana (milna), in Feroz ul-Lughat, page 1203, here. Compiler has placed (milna) in brackets to impart that mitti mein mil jana and mitti mein milna both have same meanings. Urdu readers can access the link and English-only readers translation of what is in there will be provided. (ii) Words milna is singular and milnay is plural. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used plural hence it is the closest to what Shaykh Dehalvi used. Hence mitti mein milna variation would have been the best candidate to understand in light of dictionary the meaning of mitti mein milnay and not mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust). (iii) The academic shamelessness has home in Deoband. He quotes mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) and takes a snippet of his reference, Feroz ul-Lughat, page 1203, here. You can see snippet on his blog as well. Why the snippet? Because right above the snippet Feroz ul-Lughat page 1203 has entry, mitti mein mil jana (milna) and it has been explained as: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: “to mix in to soil, body turning into soil, to spoil (as in decomposition sense), going bad/off.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] There is no reference to burial of deceased in a grave. You can literally see both mitti mein mil jana (milna) and mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) one after the other in Feroz ul-Lughat page 1203 in links provided. This is called damage control and academic dishonesty. (iv) Mullah Zameel may argue but I quoted and provided snippet of my reference that’s not dishonesty and deception. Yes but concealed part which harmed his cause. Do you not read Jews revealed a bit and concealed the other to damage control: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] “Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know (it).” [Ref: Q2:146] IF you’re aware than why are you behaving like your Deobandi Uqabir and why conceal portion of book like Yahud? This wasn’t an innocent act but rather a willful, deliberate, planned attempt to hide damaging information. I will mutilate and butcher Allamah Iqbal’s verse: Ye Mullah Zameel Jinnay Dekh Kay Sharmahen Mullah Yahood. (This Mullah Zameel causes the Mullah of Jews to be embrassed.) 6.2 - Mullah’s Dishonesty Selecting One Over Others For Mitti Mein Milaana: Mullah referenced mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) from Feroz ul-Lughat, pages 1203: “Mitti mein milaana -: Idiom: - To mix with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicate every sign of 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.] Idiom mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) having meanings of to bury deceased, or burial of deceased and it is supported by other dictionaries also, here, here. Same phrase mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) in Jhangir ul-Lughat has no mention of burial: “Idiom -: Mitti mein milaana -: 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.] Why one grammarian and linguist did not add meaning of burial of deceased as part of this phrase? You’re entitled to your speculations in this regard. Based on absence of burial in grave meaning I am in my right to argue not all grammarians and linguists are confident mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) means burial. You also must ask: Why Deobandi scholarship is omitting/concealing mention of sources which undermine their position? I let the readers decide IF Mullah Zameel is practicing his Deobandi Akabir’s evil Sunnah or not? 7.0 - Mitti Mein Milnay, And Mitti Mein Milaana Denoting Burial OF Deceased In Grave: (i) Mullah employed the two linked dictionaries to justify, mitti mein milna/milnay (to mix into dust), conveys meaning of burial in grave. The dictionary references are about, mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust), and what they do support is that there is overlapping of meaning between, mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust), and words used in Taqwiyat ul-Iman, mitti mein milnay/milna (to mix into dust). He quoted, mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust), to explain, mitti mein milnay, because they share common root derivatives hence commonality of meaning. I want to spell this out Deobandi Mullah has done nothing wrong by using near enough idiomatic expression to clarify meaning of, mitti mein milnay/milna, nothing wrong whatsoever. This is a standard practice when engaging in linguistic analysis of words. (ii) That being said, question arises how and why the words, mitti mein; milna, milnay, milaana, milaanay are synonymous with burial in grave? Why Mullah Zameel? Why? 7.1 - Why Mitti Mein Milna And Milaana Are Synonymous With Burial In Grave: (i) Shaykh Thanvi and his Abba died. They were buried with very little song and dance both were buried in their graves. In days their bodies began to decompose, rot, and smell. Acids in their bellies produced so much gas in their intestines that their stomachs exploded and over time decomposition did it’s job. From dust they came to dust they returned. Meaning mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) died and mitti mein mil gaya (has mixed into dust). Mitti ka putla mar kar mitti mein mil gay (clay figure died and mixed into dust as clay). (ii) Mitti mein milna/milaana (to mix into dust/to mix another into dust) are synonymous with burial of deceased because when body is put in grave it decomposes to such an extant that there remains no distinction between soil/clay and between remains of deceased person’s body except skeleton. All other biological matter in grave becomes soil, clay, dust hence why mar kar mitti mein milna (to mix into dust after death) and mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) are idiomatic expression of burial. (iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “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.] Hence this idiomatic expression had/has no VALID basis to describe death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). 7.2 - Mitti Mein Milna Idiomatic Expression Is Used In Hate And Contempt: This language is not used for someone whom a persons loves and respects. When it is used by one for another than it is employed in regards to an enemy, or in regards to extremely hated person. It is always used in an attempt to degrade, insult, disrespect and as show of contemptuous rage directed toward living/deceased. This is why no Deobandi ever uses these words to describe burial of his own Abba Ji as, mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (has died and mixed into dust). Nor describes impending death and burial of loved and respected Amma Ji as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wali heh (will die and will mixed into dust). There are exceptional usages such as when it is used about one’s own self. In this context it conveys sense of self-deprecating humility especially in poetical verses. 7.3 - Do As You Say With Your Own Senior Scholarship And Loved Ones: Mar kar mitti mein milna (to mix into dust after death), and mar kar mitti mein milgaya (died and mixed into dust), and tens of other relating variations can be used by Muslims while mentioning burial of Deobandi Shuyukh. I advise Deobandis to use phrases like, mar kar mitti mein mil-gaya (died and mixed into dust) mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) type of language due to your Shuyukh like -: Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Hussain Ahmad Madani, Manzoor Ahmad Nomani, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, Murtaza Hassan Dharbangi, Abdul Shakoor Lakhnavi, Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, Ismail Dehalvi, Qasim Nanotavi, Ghulamullah Khan, Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Abdullah Darkhawasti, Atta-Ullah Shah Bukhari, and others like them. What is the harm in using such language about these Mullahs when it only means burial in grave? No harm whatsoever. There are two reasons I advise Deobandis to engage in this righteous act: (i) It will demonstrate you genuinely believe usage of these words is absolutely blameless, (ii) and because these words quite accurately describe what is expected to happen to bodies of those who insulted and stood with one whom insulted and disrespected of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Mullah Kameena I suggest you go and describe your Abbas’s death and burial, or potential of it, with language you are legitimizing and promoting as blameless in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) such as - mar kar mitti mein -; mil gaya, milnay wala etc. Don’t you dare squeal and than charge: ‘You’re being abusive and encouraging people to insult and abuse our senior scholarship and my much loved Abba Ji (rahimullah).’ 8.0 - Mitti Mein Milna, According To Dictionary Means, Burial In A Grave: (i) Mullah ar-Rahman says: “… so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to?” “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave. This is clearly stated as one of its meanings in authoritative Urdu dictionaries. According to Fayrūz-ul-Lughāt, p. 1203: LINK. As stated, one of the meanings of the idiom “to put into contact with soil” is: “to bury”. The same is found in Nūr-ul-Lughāt, vol. 4 p. 487: LINK. In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī …” There can be no denial dictionaries state mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust), and other variations of this idiomatic expression mean burial of deceased in grave but this is not concrete amongst linguists as demonstrated in sections 6.2 of this article. The only direct reference to mitti mein milnay is mitti mein mil jana (milna) in Feroz ul-Lughat, here, which mentions no burial of deceased in grave or any similar meaning. Khaq is another word for mitti and in Noor ul-Lughat which Mullah himself referenced has under, khaq mein milna meaning of burial is stated, here. This why I will not be extra judicial about meaning of mitti mein milna/milnay. Instead we will allow that it also means burial of deceased in grave on account of similarity of it with similar expressions as well as, khaq mein milna. 8.1 - Mullah Khohta Is Reminded - Do Not Say Ra’ina But To Say UnZurna: (i) Previously origin of this idiomatic expression was explained including why such, and when such expressions are used in sections 7.1 to 7.2. Now it is time to respond to Mullah in light of Quran. (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the believers: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Following is interpretation is by Imam Jalal al-Deen Mahalli: “O you who believe do not say to the Prophet s ‘Observe us’ rā‘inā is an imperative form from murā‘āt which they used to say to him and this was a derogatory term in Hebrew derived from the noun al-ru‘ūna ‘thoughtlessness’. They found this very amusing and used to address the Prophet s in this way and so the believers were forbidden to use it; but say instead ‘Regard us’ that is look at us and give ear to what you are commanded and be prepared to accept it; and for disbelievers awaits a painful chastisement that is the Fire.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q2:104, here.] Tafsir by al-Wahidi has following explanation: “(O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): “Listen to us” (ra‘ina) …” (2:104). Said Ibn Abbas according to the narration of ‘Ata’: “This is because the Arabs used to employ this expression (ra‘ina), so when the Jews heard them using it with the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, they liked it. This same expression in the parlance of the Jews had the connotation of vile abusive language. They said: ‘Before, we used to abuse Muhammad secretly. Now, you can abuse him openly because this expression is used in their speech’. Therefore, they used to come to Allah’s Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and say: ‘O Muhammad! ra‘ina’, and the they would laugh. A man from the Helpers — Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubadah who understood well the language of the Jews—understood the reason. He said to them: ‘O enemies of Allah! May Allah’s curse be on you. By Him in Whose Hand is Muhammad’s soul, I will cut the head of any man of you who utters this expression’. They objected, saying: ‘But do you not use the same expression with him?’ And therefore Allah, exalted is He, revealed: (O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): “Listen to us” (ra‘ina) but say “Look upon us” (unzurna) ...” [Ref: Tafsir Asbab al-Nuzul, 2:104, here.] Readers are also advised to look into Tafsir by Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah), here. I have not quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir because contents related to verse are in large quantity. 8.2 - Ra’ina And Unzurna In Tafasir And Injunction Derived From Ayah: Tafasir establish Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited usage of perfectly legitimate none insulting word when addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) on account of Jews distorting and employing it to insult/mock Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In contrast to Ra’ina words, mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) are used in meaning of burial in grave (because body decays to dust in grave) as well as in contemptuous literal meaning of mixing into dust. Mitti mein milna, milnay, milaana, milaanay are frequently used in abusive, insulting, degrading tone and used as such about a hated individual and one held in contempt by speaker. Hence idiomatic usage of mitti mein milna/milnay (one to be mixed into dust/soil) in regards to describing death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are prohibited by greater degree when compared to Ra’ina. What do the Deobandi Khohta’s want you to believe about mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust)? It is harmless expression meaning burial in grave while totally ignoring and Ayaat quoted above and their injunctions. 8.3 - Deobandis Demonstrated Two Hundred Years OF Khohta Level Intellect: Have they not computed Ayah: Do not say Ra’ina? Not a single Deobandi in two hundred years history of Taqwiyat ul-Iman has said: ‘Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi did not intend literal death and decomposition leading to dust stage. Shaykh Dehalvi intended burial in grave meaning of words, mitti mein milnay wala hoon (one to be mixed into dust/soil). We know Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has prohibited usage of words like, Ra’ina, which can be distorted to insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Hence after deep reflection and contemplation about words mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) I have come to conclusion these words should not be used by us, nor should not be provided legitimacy through argumentation, because it’s literal apparent meaning denotes disrespect especially when used in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And we are prohibited to use such words and language for the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in verse of Ra’ina. Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed us to use words which are innocent possible insulting connotations in His instruction to use Unzurna.’ Two hundred years history and Kafireen haven’t realized, internalized and believed in Qur’anic verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] All these FARMI Mullahs have prioritised their much beloved grand Abba Ji Shaykh Dehalvi’s and Maslak’s academic Izzat (standing) above their own Iman/Islam and of Muslims in general. 8.4 - Warning Those Who Live Fantasy, Dictionary Supports Our Meaning Too: (i) Dictionary supports your meaning but book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has prohibited you to use words which can be used to insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] 8.5 – Mitti Mein Milnay Wala Weapon OF Mass/Open Insult In Hand OF Christians: Imagine Christian missionaries - like Sam Shamoun, Jay Smith and others getting wind of these words. How they would insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) right in your face. How will one Kafir protest to another Kafir? Deobandi: ‘You’re insulting Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).’ When insulting Kafir will quote you Taqwiyat ul-Iman and Taweelaat minted by your Deobandi scholarship to justify insults and abuse hurled at the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then how will you be justified in your protest? Would you even protest? You will celebrate your victory. Farmi Deobandi Mullah on YouTube will likely offer his insight with glee and joy: ‘Even Christians accept and support our stance in regards to mitti mein milnay/milna against Barelwi grave-worshipping Mushrikeen. Sam Shamoun as a neutral true academic scholar too has agreed with us that using these words about Prophet Muhammad is not insulting.’ 8.6 - Rise Above Your Faction’s Truth And Judge The Matter In Light Of Islam: (i) This issue is not about Deobandi VS. Barelwi. Or who wrote and how we will trash him. Or whose Mullahs are champions of Munazra Kushti hall. This is about standing-up to honour and respect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This is about holding those who insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) accountable. And to prevent others from engaging in same insults, abuse and disrespect using what Deobandi scholarship has HALAL-ED with their Taweelaat. Don’t support or defend Deobandi or Barelwi. The controversy is about saving Iman and Islam of Muslims including those who claim Deobandism as label. IF you see this issue as any other you’re lost in maze of deception and confusion created by Mullahs. Ignore all and judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and all will be clear: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best (way) and best in result.” [Ref: Q4:59] The book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) records: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] “They say, "If we return to al-Madinah, the more honoured (for power) will surely expel therefrom the more humble." And to Allah belongs (all) honour, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know.” [Ref: Q63:8] Honour Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as they should be and avoid any word which can even be distorted to dishonour them. 9.0 - Mullah Referencing Shaykh Gangohi’s Taweel Of Mitti Mein Milna: (i) Mullah writes: “In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī explained: “Mawlānā Marḥūm (i.e. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd) also believed that the bodies of the prophets (upon them peace) will not turn to dust since soil encompasses the deceased person from all sides, and the soil beneath the deceased joins the body with the shroud, this is called ‘meeting/joining/coming into contact with the soil.’ There is nothing objectionable (in this).” (Ta’līfāt Rashīdiyyah, p. 111 -: here) An almost identical explanation to that of ….” (ii) It is shame Mullah does not actually summarize, nor translate in entirety what Shaykh Gangohi wrote. Those who can read Urdu will be able notice missing content in translation. As much as Mullah Bad-Damagh attempted he conveyed meaning of Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa in his own words than direct translation and he brought to prominence what was alluded to by Shaykh Gangohi. 9.1 – My Conspiracy Theory Mullah Hiding Truth To Keep Cat In Deception Bag: (i) Mullah did not translate the entirety of Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa because he has translated, mitti mein milnay (to mix into soil), as IF he is translating words, mitti say milnay (come into contact with soil). Had he translated and provided summary of entire Fatwa than all game would be exposed to his English readers. In absence of entire Fatwa it is easier to subject English speakers to pre-prepared and well rehearsed: “Shaykh Dehalvi’s words are absolutely innocent and these are our proofs.” (ii) Shaykh Gangohi writes: “Mitti mein milnay kay do mani hen, aik ye kay mitti ho kar, mitti zameen kay sath khalt ho jaway, jaisay sab ishya zameen mein parr kar, khaq ho kar, zameen hi ban jaati hen.Dosra …” Translation: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Second …” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] These words of Shaykh Gangohi are enough to demonstrate words of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi are not innocent as Deobandis are portraying them to be. 10.0 - Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s Fatwa Under The Microscope: Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s second meaning and how he derived it will be addressed comprehensively just in a bit but first translation of entire Fatwa. Mullah presented: “In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī explained: “Mawlānā Marḥūm (i.e. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd) also believed that the bodies of the prophets (upon them peace) will not turn to dust since soil encompasses the deceased person from all sides, and the soil beneath the deceased joins the body with the shroud, this is called ‘meeting/joining/coming into contact with the soil.’ There is nothing objectionable (in this).” (Ta’līfāt Rashīdiyyah, p. 111 -: here) An almost identical explanation to that of …” Actual translation of entire Fatwa: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And decased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too convinced in bodies of Prophets (alayhis salam) NOT turning into dust. Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil – this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana. There is no (reason for any) objection.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] 10.1 - Shaykh Dehalvi Believed Bodies OF Prophets Do Not Turn To Dust: Shaykh Gangohi writes: “Mawlānā Marḥūm (i.e. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd) also believed that the bodies of the prophets (upon them peace) will not turn to dust …” Shaykh Gangohi did not provide any supporting evidence but that does not mean there is none to substantiate his claim. Evidence and what it’s worth in this discussion will be addressed in due time. 10.2 - Shaykh Gangohi Doing The Tight Rope Walk: (i) Shaykh Gangohi begins by telling us that meaning of mitti mein milna is: “… to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil).” Than he realizes mitti say mil jana (to come into contact with soil) to explain mitti mein milna (to mix into soil) is not enough because one indicates mixing into soil while other indicates portion of body touching soil. He than adds explanation why mitti mein –: milna (to mix into soil), mil-jana (to mix into soil), milaana (to mix another into soil) are used as expression meaning burial: “Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil; this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana.” (ii) This is a cheap shameless attempt by Shaykh Gangohi to distort how and why the expressions mitti mein milna, milaana, mil-jana arose and why they are used. Metaphorically speaking I will beat Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi with Mullah’s shoe. (iii) Mullah Zameel employed Noor ul-Lughat and while studying his specific referrence and generally the entire page I encountered this golden nugget: “Mitti hona (to become soil) – Khaq mein milna (to mix into soil) -: To turn into dust. (Metaphorical:) To break/decompose. (Poet – Aatish:) For sake of God, O Sky hand it over. Slowly in time my coffin may not turn to soil.” [Ref: Noor ul-Lughat, Volume 4, Page 487, here.] Poet has alluded to body turning to soil after decomposition and compiler of Noor ul-Lughat has added this poetical verse to explain meaning of mitti hona (to turn into soil) and khaq/mitti mein milna (to mix into soil). This establishes usage of expression mitti/khaq mein -: milna (to mix into soil), milaana (to mix another into soil), mil jana (to mix into soil), mitti hona (to turn into soil) and many other variations are used due to what happens to body in grave and not as Shaykh two eyed blind Dajjal said: “Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil; this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana.” This is how TRUTH is revealed when two liars conspire against such a obvious truth. (iv) Can word MEIN be used in meaning of SAY and IF yes than when? This is obvious elephant in the room which I have deliberately not addressed because it was brought in discussion up by Mullah near the end of his article and that is where it will be addressed. It was comprehensively addressed in 16.0 to 16.6. 10.3 - Shaykh Gangohi And Blind Following Him Provide Proof IF You’re Upon Truth: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sayings: “Woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands, and then declare, This is from God, in order to sell it for a paltry price. Woe to them because of what their own hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned .” [Ref: Q2:79] This Ayah is about what the worst of mankind did but Deobandi Mullahs are not FAR behind. They invent their own meanings of words, phrases, and at time insert words into sentences which were not part of them on account of lie told by a Mullah century ago. Those who follow the blind as blind than go on to insert these meanings into dictionaries and when re-printing books of influential scholars of past few centuries and than say: This is from that Allamah. (ii) I dare to challenge Deobandis and Mullah to quote me a poetical verse of Urdu, or a work pre-dating Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa in which writer has said/indicates words mitti mein -: milna (to mix into soil), milaana (to mix another into soil), mil jana (to mix into soil)… are used in meaning of burial because body is in contact with soil and due to it is encompassed by soil. There is no such evidence supporting Shaykh Gangohi’s BATIL Taweel. 10.4 – Shaykh Gangohi’s True Minhaj And His Exception From Islamic Norm: (i) Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi was enquired about legality of poets calling Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a statue, or an idol, and about saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is: Ashob tark fitnah e Arab (an Arab tribulation which ends tribulations). Shaykh Gangohi responds: “Speaker of these ill words even though does not intend literal in meaning of obvious/apparent sense (of words used) but instead uses them in figurative sense. Despite it is not free of insinuation of insult, disrespect and (not free of causing) grief to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This is reason due to which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited the companions to desist using word Ra’ina and instead instructed them to use Unzurna. Even though companions (Allah be pleased with them all) did not use it as the Jews employed it for. But it was way in which Jews acted mischeviously and (it contained) insinuation of griefing and insult of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore injunction was issued: “Do not say Ra’ina (consider us) instead say Unzurna (look upon us).” [Ref: Fatawah Rasheedia, Complete In-One-Volume, Dar ul-Ishaat, Page204, here.] I have only quoted partial Fatwah of Shaykh Gangohi but complete Fatwa is available in Urdu and on link provided. (ii) This Fatwa is what a Muslim should say, a scholar should say, and Muslims expects like of Shaykh Gangohi to say about words which are insinuating insult and disrespect of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) Allamah Arshad ul-Qadri (rahimullah) in his two gems published as Zalzala, here, and as Zair o Zabr, here, expertly exposed the double standard Deobandi scholarship is engaged in. Matters which Deobandi scholarship declares Shirk, Kufr, and Bidda when targetting Muslims are all in accordance with Tawheed, Islam, and Shari’ah when a Deobandi scholar or a close associate is associated with it. And in this vein Shaykh Gangohi is no different practicing this double standard. When Shaykh Dehalvi described Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) Shaykh Gangohi didn’t say these words are insinuating disrespect and are insulting in their tone nor warned usage of such words could invalidate good deeds, nor warned usage of these words is akin to saying Ra’ina, nothing as such. What did the Shaykh Gangohi do: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And decased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too convinced in bodies of Prophets (alayhis salam) NOT turning into dust. Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil – this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana. There is no (reason for any) objection.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] He made Taweel despite knowing too well prohibitive Hukm on using insulting language; and regarding words which can be misconstrued in a native or another language to insult/disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 10.5 - The Likeness OF Shaykh Gangohi Is OF Jew Scholars And Christian Monks: (i) This is a man who like scholars of Jews made Haram as Halal; a man who made Ra’ina Halal which in reality is Haram when he supported and made Taweel of Shaykh Dehalvi’s insulting statement. Those who accepted his Halal against the teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and obeyed Shaykh Gangohi they took him as a Rabb and worshipped him instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] There is no Ilah and Rabb except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and none is deserving of worship except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and anywho has another should take note of following: “Indeed you (polytheists) and what you worship other than Allah are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to (enter) it." [Ref: 21:98] (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about one who legislates his/her own rules/laws in compliance with their personal wishes: "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] One who engages in this activity Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says regarding them: “And if any of them should say: ‘Verily, I am a god besides Him (Allah).’ Such a one We should recompense with Hell. Thus We recompense the wrongdoers.” [Ref: 21:29] 11.0 - Leaning On Sharh Tibi Ala Miskhat ul-Masabih And Mirqat ul-Mafatih: Mullah writes: “An almost identical explanation to that of the author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān was given by Imām al-Ṭībī in his commentary of Mishkāt many centuries prior: LINK. “Meaning, you prostrate to me only out of respect and awe. When I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain. So prostrate to the Ever-Living that does not die, and the One Whose kingdom does not end.” (Sharḥ al-Ṭībī ‘ala ‘l-Mishkāt, p. 2336) The same explanation is reproduced in Mullā ‘Alī Qārī’s Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ. Al-Ṭībī uses the Arabic expression rahīn rams (contained in soil) which is similar to Taqwiyat al-Īmān’s Urdu expression mittī mein milne wālā (come into contact with soil). If that were…” 11.1- Mullah’s Translation Skills Are Much To Be Desired: (i) Mullah has presented translation but it is confusing at very least. It states: “When I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain.” Mullah Zameel may not be able to but at the very least attempt to do justice to title of MUFTI. I will keep to Mullah’s translation and ask; what goes away: (1) soil body is contained in, (2) the body goes away, (3) or that high prostration deserving honour, respect and reverence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will leave the heart/mind? What will go-away leading the companion to no-prostration? (ii) I purposed three options but Mullah Zameel already selected second (i.e. body goes away) because throughout this article he repeatedly said Sharh al-Tibi records same as what author of Taqwiyat ul-Iman wrote. (iii) To remedy this confusion and to cure MUFTI Zameel’s retarded sense of Arabic following is what I have understood and hence I offer a better translation: "Meaning, you will only prostrate to me now out of honor, reverence, and (my) prestige. If I were contained in grave (and that honour, reverence, prestige in your heart would cease to exist hence) you would abstain from it (i.e. prostrating). So prostrate to the Living One who does not die, and to whose dominion does not fade away." (iv) Mullah Zameel’s subcontinentian Ghayrat, which is equal to Jahiliyyah Ghayrat, might compel him to unleash Arabic grammar on me but what will he unleash to obvious distortion of Sharh al-Tibi. (v) Evidence against Mullah Zameel’s gross distortion and deception is from his own article where he used the same quote of Sharh al-Tibi but he translated it as: “Meaning, prostrate to the Ever-Living One Who does not die, and Whose Dominion does not end, for you only prostrate to me now out of awe and reverence, for indeed when I am confined to the grave, you will refrain from this.” [Ref: Refuting the Allegation that Shah Isma’il Shahid Denied … here, here.] Mufti Zameel added underlined words to Sharh al-Tibi: “… when I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain …” You have to question why did Mullah added these words into Sharh? He wanted to insinuate just like Shaykh Dehalvi said; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will decompose and mix into dust; similar to him Allamah al-Tibi (rahimullah) also stated nothing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would remain of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) body in his blessed grave. (vi) Further more Deobandi scholar Shaykh Syed Firdos Shah Qasoori translated the same quote in this way: “Prostrate to that Living (being) one that does not die and whose Kingdom/authority is never-ending. Because at this moment you prostrate to me out of respect due of my prestige but when I am contained in the grave’s soils than you will not to prostate to me.” [Ref: Charag e Sunnat, Page 243, here.] There is no underlined: “… when I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain …” 11.2 – Explanation OF Sharh al-Tibi In My Own Words: Here I will present entire point of Sharh al-Tibi in my own words. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: You’ve high level of love, respect, honour, reverence in your heart for me and that would cease to exist because burial (in a grave). Hence you would not prostrate to me when this happens than why not prostrate to only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Ever-Living and the One who will not die, nor His dominion, reverence, prestige, honour would cease in your heart and mind. 11.3 - Shaykh Gangohi Exposes Mullah’s Claim That Sharh al-Tibi Is Identical: (i) Mullah writes: “Al-Ṭībī uses the Arabic expression rahīn rams (contained in soil) which is similar to Taqwiyat al-Īmān’s Urdu expression mittī mein milne wālā (come into contact with soil).” Words used by Shaykh al-Tibi (rahimullah) have no connotation of insult/disrespect but in contrast words used by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi are insulting and degrading Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Mullah’s lie has been exposed by Shaykh Gangohi: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings, one (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; ….” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] How are words of Sharh al-Tibi identical to words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? Going by your translation how do words contained in soil same as mix into soil are same? Stop being Deobandi. I have used Deobandi as alternative of STUPID. Contained in soil has no negative connotations while mixed into soil has. (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is resting in Zameen/land which part of garden of paradise. And soil he was laid to rest in is soil of garden of paradise: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Between my house and my pulpit there is a garden of the gardens of Paradise, and my pulpit is on my fountain tank (i.e. Al-Kauthar)." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H287, here.] For Allamah al-Tibi (rahimullah) to write Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is contained in soil is not disrespectful in anyway. In contrast Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi is evidence against your lie that Shaykh Dehalvi used similar to Allamah al-Tibi’s (rahimullah) expression. (iii) Can you demonstrate a single instance where a Arab said/used words raheen rams to mean to mix into dust. Can you provide referrence of a non-Deobandi Arab scholar who has said raheen rams in Sharh al-Tibi means mixing into soil as well as being contained in soil. In absence of evidence demonstrating such usage how can you claim it is similar to mitti mein milna (to mix into soil)? Have you no FEAR of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? 12.0 - Addressing Shaykh In Mathnavi Noor Salik Said Prophet’s Body Is Preserved: (i) Mullah writes: “… mittī mein milne wālā (come into contact with soil). If that were not clear enough, the author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān has another work, a poem called Mathnawī Silk Nūr, in which he makes it clear that his belief is that the blessed body of the Prophet is preserved. For documentation, …” Here is the rarely seen always heard, Mathnavi Noor e Salik, here. I checked and reference is correct but I am not too sure correctness about the translation and said meanings of these poetical verses. Argument could be made against Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi IF I play word games and play dictionary dictionary game like Deobandis but I am not Mullah. I leave the bey-Imanis to Deobandi Mullahs. (ii) Shaykh Dehalvi knew and believed bodies of Prophets and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are/is intact and incorrupt demonstrates to even greater extent how evil natured this Harami incarnation of Shaytan was. This doesn’t lessen the blame but increases the severity of what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi engaged in. 12.1 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Deliberate Use OF Insulting Language And Tone: (i) Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat has not argued Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi believes the body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has actually decayed and turned to soil/dust. I quote: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is Tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were of Shirk Khafi (hidden Shirk) I have stated them as (Shirk) Jalli (i.e. Clear/major Shirk). Due to these reasons I fear publishing of this will definitely lead to strife. IF I were to stay here than … written this book and there will be strife due to it but my expectation is that after fighting strife all will sort themselves out - this is my opinion. IF you persons opinion is in support of publishing it than it will be published otherwise it will be destroyed.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] (ii) Issue here is that he chose to insult and degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by making Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the vessel through which Shaykh Dehalvi expressed his disrespect. Words mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is just one example of Tayz words which Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used to insult and degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 12.2 - Shaykh Thanvi Equates Words OF Taqwiyat ul-Iman To Lacking-Respect And Insult: (i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “And know/believe (with firm) conviction every creation may he be great (bara) or lowly (chota) compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 35, here.] Shaykh Thanvi was enquired about this insulting and degrading statement as well as another rank-lowering statement and Shaykh Thanvi says: “In Taqwiyat ul-Iman in some places those harsh/sakht words were employed, those then were cure for the ignorance of (people that belonged to that) period. Like in Quran Majeed against those who believed Isa (alayhis salam) as an Ilah … but present the habit of some (people) is that they employ these words without need; this is without doubt bay-adabi (lacking-respect) and gustakhi (insult).” [Ref: Imdad ul-Fatwa, Volume5, Page389, here.] What we got here is, in a context usage of these phrases is not insult, and in your context these are lacking-respect and are insulting. We are justified in asking: How is usage of such tone/language targeting Prophets, angels, Awliyah justified when correcting a Jahil Muslim’s misguidance? (ii) Thomas hold’s erroneous notions about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) such as: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can create another uncreated God. To correct Thomas should I employ harsh words targeting Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Would those words have warrant in Islam? Would those words be insulting and would I be committing major Kufr IF I employed harsh words against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while correcting Thomas? YES! How about employing same harsh words about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while reciting Quran - would that change the Hukm? NO! How can use of harsh words targeting Prophets, angels, and Awliyah not be insult and disrespect of these personalities while correcting a Jahil Muslim? (iii) Truth is words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi employed are by their very nature insulting and disrespectful and no context would legitimize the usage nor make them disrespect-less, or insult-less. 13.0 - Mullah Complains Foul About Shaykh Abu Hassan: "But how does the notorious online Barelwī Abu Hasan present this passage of Taqwiyat al-Īmān? As follows: ... [LINK] ... (This is from Abu Hasan’s “The Killer Mistake”, p. 172) Where does it say “mar kar mittī honā” (I will die and become dust) in the passage? (Which Abu Hasan renders as: “I shall also die one day and become dust.”). Where does it say “mar kar mittī honā” (I will die and become dust) in the passage? (Which Abu Hasan renders as: “I shall also die one day and become dust.”). The very image from Taqwiyat al-Īmān that Abu Hasan shares shows the words are: “mar kar mittī mein milne wālā hon” (I will die and come into contact with soil), which are similar to the words used by al-Ṭībī and which the Urdu dictionaries show to mean: “to be buried”.” (i) Mullah says Allamah al-Tibi employed words similar to mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). It should be noted Mullah Lanti is lying like his Deobandi senior scholarship (i.e. shamelessly and brazenly). What Allamah al-Tibi (rahimullah) wrote was addressed earlier. (ii) Else where on his own website Mullah copied an article which contained literal translation of phrase mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (one day I will too die and mix into dust), provided by Deobandi Shaykh Ibrahim Desai, here, and Shaykh Ibrahim Desai translates it as: “I will also die and mix in sand one day.” 13.1 - What Abu Hassan Wrote In Book, The Killer Mistake: Abu Hassan wrote: "This is the worst passage of all in which he mentions the ĥadīth of Qays in which RasūlAllāh g asked him, “Would you prostrate to my grave?” but Ismāýīl added his own insight and said that he would die and rot in his grave. “mar kar mitti hona” is an idiom in Urdu meaning “died and became dust.” [Ref: The Killer Mistake, Page 212, Version 1.6, here.] Abu Hassan also copy pasted the scanned image of relevant section where, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust), can be seen and read in Urdu, here. In his English text Abu Hasan used, mar kar mitti hona (turning into dust after death) as expression denoting decomposition leading to stage of dust after death. Please NOTE Abu Hassan does not say Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote, mar kar mitti hona. Instead he wrote, “mar kar mitti hona is an idiom in Urdu …” indicating he employed it as a nearest worded idiom to what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote to explain literal meanings expressed in phrase, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). What I stated is best possible solution based on FOUR concretes but you’re FREE to make your own decision -: (i) There is no explicit mention by Abu Hassan that phrase mar kar mitti hona (turning into dust after death) is what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote. (ii) How linguistics demonstrate meanings of words by looking into nearest/closest words and idioms. (iii) On basis that Abu Hassan provided scanned image of Urdu Taqwiyat ul-Iman where actual words were represented: “… 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 …“ (iv) Words mar kar mitti hona lessen the crime committed by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. I will demonstrate separately in next section. 13.2 – Shaykh Abu Hasan’s Mitti Hona VS. Shaykh Dehalvi’s Mitti Mein Milna: (i) Abu Hasan employed words mar kar mitti hona (turning to dust after death). IF we contextualize these words into Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s than it would be read as: Mein bi aik din mar kar mitti honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and turn to dust). Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (one day I will too die and mix into dust). Which is ugly and whose rendering is uglier? (ii) Abu Hasan’s words denotes becoming dust and omits meaning of mixing into dust. Shaykh Dehalvi’s actual statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman denotes, (1) becoming dust, (2) and than mixing into dust. (iii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement denotes meaning that no sign of body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would remain because it has mixed into dust. Abu Hasan’s wording actually lessens the severity because it insinuates turning into dust but does not say body’s remains would be mixed into soil. Did Mullah Zameel give Abu Hasan his THANKS because of his help in him reduce the crime? You will see the THANK he got. (iv) Shaykh Abu Hasan expressed and highlighted FUNDAMENTAL meaning in Shaykh Dehalvi’s statement which goes against prophetic teaching. He did not and did not intend to distort to magnify nor changed the expression to lessen the crime of Shaykh Dehalvi. He was only highlighting one particular meaning of idiomatic expression while ignoring the other hence he used mar mar mitti hona. To argue Shaykh Abu Hasan distorted to increase or reduce to victimize Shaykh Abu Hasan is injustice. 14.0 - Deobandi Author Has Theory On Why Mar kar Mitti Hona Was Employed: Tahrif theory advanced by Khohta: “Abu Hasan commits taḥrīf right in front of his reader’s eyes. Even non-Urdu speakers (who can read an Arabic script) can see the words in the image he shared are “mar kar mittī mein milne wālā hon” not “mar kar mittī honā”. After committing this blatant taḥrīf Abu Hasan then has the gall to say it is Deobandis who give “far-fetched explanations”. Let alone a “far-fetched explanation”, Abu Hasan literally changes the words of the text.” What can I say to a Khohta masquerading as a graduate of a seminary and not just an Aalim but a MUFTI? I will not address Mullah but instead I will invest my time in intelligent and educated readers. 14.1 - Defining Mitti Mein Milna/Milnay By Idioms Linguistically Close To It: (i) In Taqwiyat ul-Iman words are, mitti mein milnay, but Deobandi MUFTI the author of article against Abu Hassan has used, mitti mein milaana, to define meaning of words used by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, here. At the end of Deobandi’s article author has added an APPENDIX where mitti mein milnay has been explained by -: (1) khaq mein milna, (2) mitti mein milna, (3) mitti mein milaa deeya, (4) mitti mein mil jana, (5) mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay, (6) mayyit ko mitti dena, (7) mitti milli heh, here. (ii) Abu Hassan used an idiom closely associated with words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman as do Deobandis to explain what words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman mean. Mullah charged Abu Hasan has engaged in distortion. (iii) Anyone other than resident Khohta maintaining Barelwism WordPress would’ve contemplated: Abu Hasan provided scanned image showing problematic statement from a published Taqwiyat ul-Iman. It would be too adventurous of Abu Hasan to pull such heist - IN FRONT OF EYES OF DEOBANDI MULLAH BRIGADE. Likely Abu Hasan is providing clarification to words employed in Taqwiyat ul-Iman with words closely associated with them - a practice which we Deobandi engage as well. Instead Mullah mooching OFF Masjid donations decided to go on ATTACK mode. 15.0 - Engage In Distortion, Far Fetched Taweelaat, Say We Are Only Peace Makers: (i) Mullah writes: "Deobandīs are not giving “far-fetched explanations”. They are simply correcting the record on the lies upon lies that Barelwīs heap upon Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and others. Abu Hasan’s taḥrīf is not all that different to the very clear taḥrīf we caught Abu Hasan’s friend Muhammad Aqdas Barelwī doing of another passage from Taqwiyat al-Īmān. See here.” This is called lying utter shamelessly. We will see in coming sections IF Deobandis engage in FAR-FETCHED explanations and IF they engage in DISTORTION. (ii) Deobandis are quite deceptively are distorting original Taqwiyat ul-Iman to remove insults and change its insulting tone. Maulana Muhammad Ali Raza wrote book, Taqwiyat ul-Iman Mein Tahrif Keun (Why Distortion In Taqwiyat ul-Iman), here. What I have is so explosive that everyone who has engaged in FAR-FETCHED explanations of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala should die with shame. Don’t have your hopes up because their Mullahs have developed thick skin of shamelessness and have no sense of honour and dishonour. (iii) It is time to bring down Deobandi FAR-FETCHED Taweel mein means say. 16.0 - Abu Hasan’s Retort And Deobandi’s Response To Abu Hassan: According to Barelwism WordPress on 09/09,2021 Abu Hasan retorted: (i) “It was Molvi Manzoor Nomani who first made Taweel that in the statement, mitti mein milnay wala, the word, Mein, has been interchangeable with, Sey, so it could also be read as, mitti sey milna wala, which when translated into English would mean, come into contact with soil. This shows the level of Urdu of the Deobandi Akabireen, who don’t know the difference between the words, Mein and Sey. (ii) The definitions shown in Feroz ul-Lughat for, mitti mein milna included: to make extinct, to remove all traces of and to lay waste to something, and from all those he only saw, to bury, this is nothing more than wilful blindness.” Deobandi’s content directly related to what Abu Hasan wrote – I quote: “In the sentence in question “Mein” (in) and “Say” (with/from/to) can be used interchangeably. Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohī hinted to this in his Fatāwā (see the last line in the Urdu passage from Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah, above). Nūr-ul-Lughāt vol. 4 p. 738 also explains that “Mein” (in) can sometimes be used in the meaning of “Say” (with/from): * HERE *. The example given is: “Darakht mein band’h do.” which means: “Darakht Say band’h do. (tie it to the tree).“ Original with Urdu Rasm ul-Khat can be read, here, as well as on Barelwism WordPress blog, here. I will address the contents authored by Mullah in chronological order: (i) Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa, (ii) usage of MEIN in meaning of SAY, (iii) and finally address mitti mein milna (to mix into soil) means to dafan karna (to bury). 16.1 - What Shaykh Gangohi Wrote In Fatawa Rasheediya About Mitti Mein Milna: Shaykh Gangohi wrote: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And deceased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too convinced in bodies of Prophets (alayhis salam) NOT turning into dust. Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil – this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana. There is no (reason for an) objection.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] 16.2 - Shaykh Gangohi And His Taweel Of Mein To Mean Is Say Under Attack: (i) I am not denying usage of mein in meaning of say. In the following discussion I will be just attempting to demonstrate and help readers figure out when mein is in meaning of say. IF I purpose a solution in absence of some serious issues all might not agree to it hence it is important I give you tour of battle ground. (ii) Crow BOTIS (meat-bits) and Salan: (1) Shaykh Gangohi: Ashraf Ali Thanvi I am hungry, Salan aur Halal Desi Kavwa ki botiyan plate mein daldo (I am hungry, put curry and Desi crows meat chunks plate mein). Did he want the delicious crow meat in the plate or did Shaykh Gangohi ask Shaykh Thanvi to donate FROM/SAY his plate some Kavwa BOTIS and Salan to him? Please be aware scenario minted on spot is not entirely FICTIONAL because Shaykh Gangohi deemed crow as Halal, here, here. (2) Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani says: Meri jawan 16 sala beti apnay gar mein gaee (My sixteen year old daughter went into/mein house). IF mein (into/in) means say (from/with) than did Shaykh Madani’s daughter, gar mein gaee (went into home), or gar say gaee (went from home)? Those who don’t know; in Urdu vernacular words gar say gaee are used to carrys insinuate a girl eloping with her boy-friend. How do we determine Shaykh Madani’s daughter went into/in her Abba Ji’s home or decided to leave Abba Ji’s home? I will reveal how we determine when mein is in meaning of say. Anyhow. I say she kept her Abba’s Izzat (honour) intact and went into her Abba’s house. You play, DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY, and argue she went say/from Abba Ji’s house. 16.3 - Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi Invents A New Methodology: In idiomatic expression, mitti mein milnay wala, subjecting mein to Taweel and defining it to mean say and than interpreting idiomatic expression based on that Taweel changes its actual dictionary defined meanings. You will not find this Taweel of idioms on basis that mein means say in any dictionary nor Taweel based meaning of expression under mitti mein milna, milaana etc. Not in Feroz ul-Lughat, not in Noor ul-Lughat, not in Jami ul-Lughat, not in Farhang Asifiyyah, here. None in dictionaries defined idiomatic expression, mitti mein milna/milnay wala, to mean, mitti say milnay wala (to come into contact with soil/dust). Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi the potential Desi crow muncher, invented methodology of subjecting idiomatic expressions to linguistics stresses to defend his heart throb, one who made his heart skip a beat. 16.4 - Two Point Response To Mein (in/into) Usage In Meaning Of Say (with/from): (i) Mein is used in meaning of Say when natural apparent and obvious meaning of Mein (in/into) is not applicable. A comprehensive and a rather savage response was given to a Deobandi who used the same argument, here. Contents of your interest start 14.0 and end at section 14.4. It is imperative you read the linked contents otherwise you will miss decisive and consequential refutation to BAKWAS perpetuated by Deobandis. (ii) Furthermore idioms are not subjected to interpretation based linguistic meanings of words used in them. Words, mar kar mitti mein milna/milnay, are idiomatic expressions with meanings defined in dictionaries. It is bit of Khohta act to interpret idioms based on other meanings of words employed in an idiomatic expressions. 16.5 - Subjecting Idiomatic Expression To Linguistic Stresses And Results: (i) Idiom: Haath par samp khilaana. Literally: Playing with snake on ones hand. Idiomatic meaning: Engaging in an act which puts life at risk. Engaging in extremely high energy expenditure activity, here. IF I were Khohta than I will look into various meanings of words employed in idiomatic expression and subject it to SO FAR FETCHED interpretations that Andromeda galaxy would seem stones throw away. (ii) Take word, Haath (hand), as an example of unwarranted attention, here. Haath (hand) has one meaning which English readers/speakers will be able to relate – Tash kay pattay jo kissi kay hissay mein ahen - share of playing-cards given to a player equals, Haath. What do we get IF Khohta-ness is let loose -: Tash pattoon par samp ko khilaana. Translation: Playing with snake on playing-cards. This might insinuate other meanings (i.e. making fool of someone) but definitely does not reflect dictionary meaning. (iii) Idiomatic expression in question also uses word, Khilaana, and one of meaning given in dictionary is, Pitwana (to get someone beaten-up), here. In this light idiomatic expression, Haath par samp khilaana, would turn into, Haath par samp pitwana - (To get a snake beat up on ones hand). Which denotes meaning of: Getting someone/enemy beat up personally. This has nothing to do with original intended meaning of idiomatic expression. 16.6 - Shouldn’t Support Shaykh Gangohi’s Subjecting Idioms To Torture OF Detail: (i) Subjecting idiomatic expressions to other meanings of words completely distorts the intended and recorded meaning of idioms. I have just used two as example. IF Shaykh Gangohi’s desperate distortion was legitimate and methodology which rise to it was given legitimacy than Urdu language as known and understood is dead. When Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Tandvi said: Meri piyari bayti gar mein gaee aur meri khushi ka basit bani (My beloved daughter went into house and became cause of my happiness.) Secular so called Muslim would say that in dictionary mein is used in meaning of say hence Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani supported girls eloping with boys hence he was happy about his daughter leaving home. When the secularist is shown word means in/into and not as he is distorting he would argue: “While there are other meanings of “mein” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is “from” is also one meaning. It is evident from the context that say/from is the intended meaning.” Any Urdu reader can open a dictionary and go on to destroy Urdu language and standardisation idiomatic expressions and completely distort meanings of sentences in books. (ii) In this light I once again suggest that reinterpreting idiomatic expressions based on meanings of words be rejected due to three reasons: (1) It was a innovation in Urdu language which Shaykh Gangohi originated. It had no basis and has no basis in Urdu linguistics. (2) Such subjection changes the meanings to something which was never associated with idiom by grammarians or recorded in dictionaries. (3) Mein (in/into) is always on its natural and apparent meaning until Haqiqi (true), Zahiri (apparent) meaning cannot be maintained in a sentence. (iii) Readers now can judge IF word MEIN in Taqwiyat ul-Iman, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is in meaning of SAY or not and IF Deobandis are engaged in FAR-FETCHED explanations or not of controversial statement. (iv) Mullah quoted: “The example given is: “Darakht mein band’h do.” which means: “Darakht Say band’h do. (tie it to the tree).“ In previous sections I have shared with you rules how and when MEIN is in meaning of SAY. Readers can now themselves see why words, darakht mein band do, is in meaning of, darakht say band do. Natural actual meaning of MEIN would make no sense hence it is in meaning of SAY. 17.0 - Mullah Argues About Intended Meaning OF Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala: Mullah Zameel writes: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning. The context is the explanation of a ḥadīth which refers to the Prophet being in his grave i.e. being buried. This context is sufficient to clarify that what Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd meant by “mitti min milnay wala hoon" is to be buried (just like al-Ṭībī’s “raheen rams”)." 17.1 - Deobandi Acknowledges Mitti Mein Milna/Milnay Has Dual Usage: (i) Resident Khohta of Barelwism-blog has acknowledged: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” In other words Mullah has accepted meanings of mixing into dust/soil and including to bury are meanings of idiom, mitti mein milna/milnay. His argued meaning is in dictionaries under mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust). He assumes on grounds of dictionary meaning and due to context he has legitimate right to say to bury (dafan karna😞 “And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” (ii) He does know that first to hit you in the face meaning of phrase is mixing in dust/soil after decomposition but he is choosing to obey Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi. Hence we will address mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) in light of what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and historical data. 17.2 - Reminder Do Not Engage In Words Which Could Be Distorted To Insult: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed the believers: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] How did the Sahabi put this Ayah into practice: “Sayyidina Qays ibn Makhramah narrated: I was born as was Allah's Messenger in the year of the Elephant. Uthman ibn Affan asked Qubath ibn Ashyam of Banu Yamar ibn Layth: “Are you Akbar (older/great) or Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam)? He said, Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is Akbar then me but I was born before him. He added, 'And I saw the droppings of green birds having faded.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B52, Ch4, H3639, here.] How does the Wahhabi put Ra’ina Ayah into practice? Says RA’INA and uses dictionary to argue RA’INA is not used in meaning of RA’INA but we used it in another meaning: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” (ii) You have no excuse to use, to support, or to defend, or to make efforts to legitimize the usage of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) in regards Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or Prophets in general. You were prohibited to use innocent expressions which could be distorted to insult and degrade and mock the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) and innocent are FAR apart as Tawheed and Shirk. This phrase by very nature is insulting. Hence phrase is prohibited even more so than Ra’ina and this phrase should be deemed and judged so those who claim Islam as their religion. 17.3 - To Bury Is Also Meaning And That Is What Is Intended By Context: (i) Mullah writes: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” What was intended is not even up for argument simply because you’re prohibited to use those words about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which can be misconstrued to insult, words which by their nature denote insult. What was intended would be up debate IF there was permissibility to use words which could mean insult so SHUT IT you imbecile. There is no room to argue IF you are believer in the Ayah. IF you’re disbeliever you were warned in the same Ayah: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] 17.4 – Liars Distorting Truth Cannot Agree On Intended Meaning: Mullah says it is evident by context that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi intended dafan karna (to bury) as intended meaning of mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) here: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” In this context controversial statement would mean: I too will die and will be buried. While Shaykh Gangohi says Shaykh Dehalvi intended: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And deceased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too …” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] Two liars doing their best to turn the readers away from believing in literal apparent obvious meaning and both contradicting each other. 17.5 - What Was Intended By Shaykh Dehalvi, Another Side From Shaykh Thanvi: (i) Mullah says: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” I will give you the context hang on a second you Shaytan. Here: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is Tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were of Shirk Khafi (hidden Shirk) I have stated them as (Shirk) Jalli (clear/major Shirk). Due to these reasons I fear publishing of this will definitely lead to strife. IF I were to stay here than I would … and I see no other will take this weight/responsibility. Hence I have written this book and there will be strife due to it but my expectation is that after fighting strife all will sort themselves out - this is my opinion. IF you persons opinion is in support of publishing it than it will be published otherwise it will be destroyed.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] Now which meaning of phrase do you purpose, the apparent literal obvious, or Taweel based and dictionary sponsored? (ii) This historical anecdote recorded and reported by your very own Deobandism Mullah establishes Shaykh Dehalvi was aware what he wrote in Taqwiyat ul-Iman lacked respect and manners. IF phrase mitti mein milnay wala is not a example of TAYZ language you tell me what else meets the criteria? Shaykh Dehalvi could have wrote, I too will be buried in grave, but he deliberately selected TAYZ language. Are we suppose to ignore Shaykh Dehalvi’s own admission that he used TAYZ language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and go with your FAR-FETCHED Taweelaat? IF your Taweelaat are the intended meaning than do you mind sharing with us examples of TAYZ language would according to Shaykh Dehalvi would lead to in-fighting, disunity, and Fitna in Ummah. 17.6 - Shaykh Dehalvi, Taqwiyat ul-Iman, And Tayz Language Cause OF Unbridgeable Divide: (i) IF you had any sense you would have realized TAYZ language which Shaykh Dehalvi indicated has caused a unbridgeable chasm between Muslims and Deobandis. It has been nearly two hundred years since Taqwiyat ul-Iman was written and all it has caused is FITNA upon FITNA which its very own author predicted. You on other hand, a dumbass, are yet to acknowledge Shaykh Dehalvi used of TAYZ language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and FITNA it caused. You’re too busy blaming those who opposed Shaykh Dehalvi and his Taqwiyat ul-Iman while the Shaytan acknowledged I used this and I am/will be cause of FITNA. (ii) You tell me in context of this anecdote whose authenticity is your own Mullah, and on basis of Shaykh Dehalvi’ admission how are we to understand words, mitti mein milnay wala: (1) Literally, (2) or according to context, (3) or according to Shaykh Dehalvi’s admission that he has used TAYZ language? You would want us to go with what you Mullahs have conjured up with your magical wand. Even that conjured up FANTASY is contradicted between you Deobandis as demonstrated in 17.3. (iii) Readers have decision to make in regards to who they choose to believe, Shaykh Dehalvi, or Mullahs distorting truth to paint rosy image of Shaytan. 18.0 – Mullah’s Three Reasons Why Shaykh Dehalvi Didn’t Mean Literally: Mullah writes: “What further supports this meaning is: 1. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s poetry which shows he believes the blessed body of the Prophet is preserved. 2. The fact that the preservation of the blessed body of the Prophet is the belief that he was brought up with, and is something accepted even by Wahhābīs. There is no reason at all to think he would deviate from this accepted belief. 3. The strong likelihood Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was simply rephrasing the “raheen rams” found in earlier commentaries of Mishkat. Given these external and internal indications, there can be no doubt about Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s intent.” (i) Despite his poetical verses he chose to express passing and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in a very disrespectful way. His poetry demonstrates Shaykh Dehalvi was aware that bodies of Prophets do not decompose, turn to dust/soil. This removes excuse that Shaykh Dehalvi may not have known about the Ahadith. (ii) Shaykh Dehalvi having knowledge since childhood further removes the excuse of ignorance which could be afforded one who may not know about Quran/Sunnah teaching about the issue at hand. The issue is not that he deviated from creed which Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah ascribe to but the issue here is that he knowingly and rather deliberately walked on path of Tayz language. As a result he expressed death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) distaste, disrespect, and insultingly. Shaykh Thanvi’s anecdote sealed the deal. (iii) I also agree with observation that Shaykh Dehalvi was influenced by commentaries of Shaykh Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) and Shaykh al-Tibi (rahimullah) but for Mullah to reason Shaykh Dehalvi employed their language is Khohta act. None out of two has expressed death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi did. (iv) Given the literal apparent obvious meaning of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) along side Shaykh Dehalvi’s admitting to using disrespectful language it is absolutely natural to conclude Shaykh Dehalvi deliberately, knowingly, and with intention of belittling Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used words, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). Maybe he used it to remedy problems in ignorant Muslims creed as Shaykh Thanvi insinuates. Regardless insulting mother to remedy misconduct of your children is not remedying anything. It is creating FITNA and causing in-fighting and that is what Shaykh Dehalvi predicted his book will result and precisely what has transpired. 19.0 – Mullah Slanders The Righteous Scholars OF Islam: Mullah writes: “The reason Barelwīs insist on another false reading is (a) hatred for Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and (b) the fact that this misreading of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s text goes right back to Faḍl Rasūl Badāyūnī, followed by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, and all Barelwī elders (liars).” 19.1 - Survive The Pakistan Challenge, Say The Statement In Bazaar: (i) Mullah writes: “The reason Barelwīs insist on another false reading is (a) hatred for Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and (b) the fact that this misreading of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s text goes right back to Faḍl Rasūl Badāyūnī, followed by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, and all Barelwī elders (liars).” Deobandi Mullah Zameel is adamant those who opposed/oppose Shaykh Dehalvi are doing so out of hate/malice and natural obvious meaning is a misreading. Why don’t you demonstrate your confidence by reading/saying about Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust), mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (one whom has die and mixed into dust)... in a Pakistani Bazaar. Go preach using this language in PUBLIC and record and upload the video on YouTube. (ii) No matter in which city he preaches using this language against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), he will not make home alive nor to grave in one piece, unburnt. 100% he will by lynched and burnt to crisp. IF a Deobandi does not believe these words are repugnant, vile, despicable and believes Barelwis have invented FANTASY around these words than please go and demonstrate your confidence by doing what I suggested. (iii) Getting you Deobandi readers killed is not my objective. Please do not be stupid nor be with a stupid wanting to try his luck attempting this. This suggestion is ONLY to Deoband Mullahs especially one who wrote article I am responding to and the one’s are enjoying lamb, chicken and other delicious treats due to your Masjid Chanda. 19.2 – Mullah Kutta Playing – Blame The Opposing Party For Your Own Ills: (i) Had the Shaytan been honest he would have put the blame on Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and Demon-Group which went to hell with him: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is Tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were of Shirk Khafi (hidden Shirk) I have stated them as (Shirk) Jalli (clear/major Shirk). Due to these reasons I fear publishing of this will definitely lead to strife. IF I were to stay here than I would … and I see no other will take this weight/responsibility. Hence I have written this book and there will be strife due to it but my expectation is that after fighting strife all will sort themselves out - this is my opinion. IF you persons opinion is in support of publishing it than it will be published otherwise it will be destroyed.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] IF you say what is recorded by Shaykh Thanvi is not true than you can hang Shaykh Thanvi on pole, ignoring that he has mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (died and mixed into soil), and question him about what he recorded in his book and why. You won’t because you may have been reading his Kalma, la ilaha il-allah Ashraf Ali RasoolAllah, here. (ii) IF Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) and Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahimullah) were criminal due to revealing truth about Shaykh Dehalvi than Shaykh Thanvi who supported the ‘enemies’ should be getting some ear bashing too IF you were objective. IF you agree that Shaykh Thanvi recorded true event than you could also stand on grave of your ‘Shaheed’ and ask: Harami when you knew what you wrote is insulting than why did you write it? You could also contemplate over how and why group of so called scholars allowed him and supported him and even encouraged him to publish Taqwiyat ul-Iman with Tashaddad and Tayz words IF they were not Harami like Shaykh Dehalvi. (iii) You will do no such thing because this is called holding your own accountable, demonstrating non-partisanship, objectivity, honesty, integrity and you a Deobandi Mullah has none. 19.3 - By Slandering You’re Increasing Khayr For These Scholars, And Fire In Your Mouth: What Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah), Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahimullah), Allamah Fadl Haq Khayrabadi (rahimullah) and other scholars engaged in against Shaykh Dehalvi and evil he spawned was nothing less than Jihad in cause of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Their righteous stand against Shaykh Dehalvi and those who stood with Shaytan is even attested by your own Deobandi scholarship. You can slander these scholars and righteous servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) however you like to vent your hate. Righteous before them were slandered and vilified including Prophets, companions, and this evil continues to this day. Your vile tongue will only increase their rank and reward with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is compassionate and generous. In His Ghayra Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will compensate each and everyone with reward for every ill that was spoken about them. Hence you can keep wagging your evil tongue to sooth your enraged heart but all you add is Khayr in their bowl and hell in your mouth: “But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an innocent (person) has taken upon himself a slander and manifest sin.” [Ref: Q4:112] 20.0 - Appendix – Claim Milna Means To Bury: (i) The Claim: “For more citations showing the phrase Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd used means to be buried, see the following passage from Difa’ Ahl Sunnat: Therefore in Jami ul-Lughaat, Volume 2, Page 565, MILNA (to mix) has meaning of DAFAN HONA (to bury/to be burried) and …” In unlikely case MILNA does mean DAFAN HONA than Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to mix into dust) would mean mitti mein dafan honay wala (one to be buried in soil). This is what Maulvi Sajid Khan wants readers to believe. (ii) The Reality: There is no entry on MILNA in said dictionary. You can see two versions of same dictionary, here. IF there is another version which does have it than Deobandism and this Mullah Firawn is under Shar’ri burden to provide proof of claim they have made: “… the Prophet said: ‘The proof is due from the claimant, and the oath is due from the one the claim is made against.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B13, H1341, here.] (iii) The Response: In Feroz ul-Lughat, page 1285, word MILNA is recorded but words DAFAN HONA or any such meaning is not recorded in it, here. Another dictionary named Jami ul-Lughat – alternative name – Nawadir ul-Lughat, compiled by Maulvi Muhammad Rafi’i Dar ul-Uloom Deoband’s graduate records MILNA but does not mention DAFAN HONA as one of its meaning, here. I also checked Muneer ul-Lughat, here, and no surprise MILNA once again has no mention of DAFAN HONA. Farhang Aasifi’a has a very exhaustive list of contexts in which MILNA is used but DAFAN HONA is not part of that extensive list, here. And I also checked Jhangir ul-Lughat to see IF MILNA has claimed meaning, here, and I was disappointed to see there is no such mention. My research continued into Noor ul-Lughat and once again MILNA had no association with DAFAN HONA, here. Six dictionaries later I am out of Husn al-Zann. IF I recall rightly, every single dictionary quoted above has MILNA meaning to-mix/mixing and in this light Taqwiyat ul-Iman meaning is as it was said by Muslims and not as argued by Deobandis. 20.1 - Responding To - IF MILNA Means As Claimed By Deobandi Mullahs: (i) Idiomatic expressions have definitive meanings associated with them in dictionaries. Traditionally such expressions are not subjected to Taweel and no effort is made to turn them away from their literal obvious meaning. Nor other meanings of words employed in expression are explored to arrive at new meanings. This has no precedence in Urdu language and literature. Hence MILNA cannot change literal obvious reading of phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) nor its recorded meaning in dictionaries. (ii) Mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) literally denotes decomposition and to mix into soil/dust as dust. It is used to degrade and insult a deceased person when one employs it regarding another such as mitti mein milaana (i.e. to mix another into dust). (iii) IF MILNA means DAFAN HONA even than it cannot compel us to ignore how and why this phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) came into Urdu usage – i.e. decomposition in grave. Hence such Taweel are rejected and invalid more so when it becomes apparent that no grammarian/linguist has made Taweel of MEIN to mean SAY, and nor Taweel of MILNA (to mix) to mean DAFAN HONA (to be buried) while discussing expression mitti mein milna (to mix into dust/soil), or related expressions. In conclusion lie that came from Maulvi Sajid Khan will go to his grave and over time this lie will only add to evil burden he carries. 20.2 - Appendix - Khaq And Mitti Mein Milna Means Dafan Hona: Mullah Sajid Khan writes which Mullah Barelwism quoted: “… and in Muneer ul-Lughaat, Page 90, khaq mein milna (to mix into dust) meaning to dafan hona (to be burried). In Noor ul-Lughat mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) means dafan hona (to be buried) and than to prove meaning is authentic poetical-verse is relied on: Mein to khaq ka putla yoon hi tha, Qaza nay aur mitti mein mila deeya.(Poet: Shad) (Noor ul-Lughat, Volume4, Page1189). Here mitti mein milaa deeya (mixed into dust) has meaning of mitti mein dafan hona (to be buried in soil).” I have had many encounters with Mullah Sajid Khan and he was always caught doing something unacademic and despite being caught red handed with pants down he never apologised or displayed any sign of Haya. It has been nearly a decade I have had no contact with him phone or otherwise and I confident he hasn’t changed. 20.3 - Muneer ul-Lughat Entry Record Khaq Mein Milna And Our Response: I checked Miraat e Muneer aka Muneer ul-Lughat and refferenced was legitimate, here, and it does say khaq mein milna (to mix into dust) means dafan hona (to be buried) but it also records another meaning mit-jana (to become non-existing). IF we just go by dictionary meanings and ignore obvious, natural, apparent, first to smack you in the face meaning of mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) even than it is a phrase prohibited by RA’INA verse, quoted many times earlier in the article: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] 20.4 - Noor ul-Lughat Entry Record For Mitti Mein Milna And Our Response: (ii) I had look into Noor ul-Lughat on basis of which Mullah Sajid Khan claimed that it records mitti mein milna to mean dafan hona. I present to you all entries under mitti in Noor ul-Lughat and let you see that there is no entry of mitti mein milna, here. Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) decried Deobandi Mullahs inventing bogus books and quotes a century ago in his Abhaas e Aakhira, here, and a century later Deobandis are still using those inventions and inventing new. Mullah Sajid Khan is just continuation of this Deobandi evil Sunnah. Anyhow in Feroz ul-Lughat, phrase mitti mein mil-jana/milna, does not record dafan hona as its meaning but instead records: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: “to mix in to soil, body turning into soil, to spoil (as in decomposition sense), going bad/off.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] For argument IF Noor ul-Lughat does record mitti mein milna to mean dafan hona even than there is no warrant to use mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) in light of Ahadith and Quranic verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] 20.5 - Appendix – Mitti Mein Mil Jana Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par: Mullah Sajid Khan writes: “Similarly in Urdu’s most authorative dictionary, Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, mitti mein mil jana’s (to mix into dust) meanings are as mitti mein dafa ho jana (to be buried in soil) and than following statement is quoted: Jab pani ruskhsat ho jata heh to baqi sirf mitti reh jati he …(When water leaves than what remains is only soil…) … jissay qabarstan chorr atay hen keh mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (…which is taken to graveyard so soil comes into contant with soil). (Qissay Teray Afsanay Hen, Page 311) Here mitti kay sath mil jahay (to come into contact with soil) is in meaning of mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil).” (i) Mullah Sajid Khan referenced dictionary Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, here. I had to go through number of volumes to locate mitti and once again Mullah Sajid Khan’s song and dance has no basis in the said dictionary, here. I have presented entire mitti section to readers once again. Page 408 has entry mitti mein milna/mil-jana records that it means dafan hona, but no mention of poetical verse, and nothing to substantiate his deduction: “Here mitti kay sath mil jahay (to come into contact with soil) is in meaning of mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil).” At least I cannot accuse Mullah Sajid Khan telling complete lie. Like Shayateen he mixes falsehood with lies and shares the information. (ii) I could not find Qissay Teray Afsanay Hen on internet. My educated guess is it doesn’t exist and IF it does what Mullah Sajid Khan attributed to it does not. IF that does exist than take heed from what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] To use such words and phrases despite the prohibition amounts to at minimum a sin IF done without malicious intent and greater than sin eradication of good deeds: "O believers! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak loudly to him as you do to one another, or your deeds will become void while you are unaware." [Ref: Q49:2] We know Shaykh Dehavli added Tayz words in Taqwiyat ul-Iman knowingly and that establishes intent to use such evil langugage as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala. This intent would make usage of such language Kufr and Shaykh Dehalvi liable. (iii) I have decided to abandon chasing Mullah Sajid Khan’s into dark corners of academic deception. Those who are interested can research into his quoted sources and evaluating their worth in light of Quranic verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] 20.6 - Appendix – Establishing And Pointing Out Something Important: (i) To explain mitti mein milnay Deobandi Mullah Sajid Khan employed following Urdu expressions: (1) khaq mein milna, (2) mitti mein milna, (3) mitti mein milaa deeya, (4) mitti mein mil jana, (5) mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay, (6) mayyit ko mitti dena, (7) mitti milli heh, here. (ii) Four in order of appearance carry natural and apparent meaning of mixing with dust as dust after death and decay. It is only when one looks into dictionaries one will encounter meaning of these four as burial of dead. What these dictionaries omit is that usage of any of these by one for another would be due to contempt and to impart humiliation. Five, six, and seven are not linguisitically connected with four mentioned. Only connection they have with them is that they share meaning of burrial of dead in grave. First FOUR do and last three do not carry insinuations of decomposition leading to state of dust. Hence to put them in same basket is like sending a Kafir to paradise. Just as Kafir doesn’t belong to paradise these don’t two sets do not belong in the same category. 21.0 – Unacademic, Abusive, Insulting Language And Deobandi Mastership: (i) In the beginning I advised readers to be paitent about bad language and also stated I have a very good reason. Throughout I have used words about Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman and other Deobandi scholars as, Dajjal, Khohta, Shaytan, Dalal, Kameena, Bad-Damagh, Lanti, Firawn, and even went FAR as to use Kutta, Harami. Why I used such language? It was employed as a tool to convey, hard hitting, shock and awe dispensing, and truth revealing lesson about how game of DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY can make obvious common parlance words of disrespect and insult as harmless. In this vain I will in coming sections proceed and present dictionary meaning of words which readers might have assumed I employed in common parlance meanings which denote insult and abuse. (ii) Mind you the art of Halaling abuse with help of dictionaries; putting spins on insults, disrespect, and degrading language is copyrighted practice of Deobandi scholarship. They mastered this ignoble and despicable practice by playing word game I call, DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY. I am no way as capable as they are. They have 200 years worth of experience in doing this and I am just coming out of my shell. I have watched and been learnt by Deobandi experts hence I will demonstrate some skill while engaging in this ignoble evil Sunnah Deobandi senior scholarship originated. 21.1 - Playing Dictionary Game To Civiliz Common Parlance Percieved Insults: (i) Dajjal in Urdu means, liar; one who conceals truth and it is in this meaning I used it, here. (ii) Khohta is a Punjabi word and in Punjabi it is used in same meaning as Urdu word Gadha, in English, DONKEY. In Urdu/Punjabi idiom word Gadha/Khohta is used to mean, NADAAN (immature), here. (iii) Shaytan when it is used in Urdu as SIFT (attribute) it means, rebel, misguided, mischievous, tribulation-monger, here. (iv) Dalal in common parlance in Urdu and English would mean pimp but I did not use it in this meaning. Dalal in Urdu is used in meaning, one who seals/makes the deal i.e. broker, here. (v) Kameena in Urdu common parlance is used to mean degenerate but in Urdu it also means Ocha. Ocha means shallow, and it is in this meaning I used Kameena, here. (vi) Bad-Damagh in Urdu common parlance is used in meaning of idiot/stupid but it is also used in meaning of nazuk mizaaj meaning overly-sensitive and I employed it in this meaning, here. (vii) Lanti in Urdu common parlance means cursed but it also is used to mean bad-naseeb. In English that would mean ill-fated, unfortunate, misfortunate, here. (viii) Firawn in Urdu when used as an attribute it is used to mean disobedient (na-farmaan), rebel (baaghi), a title of king and it is in this last meaning I used Mullah Firawn i.e. Mullah-King, here. (ix) Kutta in Urdu literally means dog and when used as a description it means Kameena (degenerate), Ghulam (slave), Zaleel (disgraced, degenerate). I used it in meaning of Ghulam, here. (x) Harami in common parlance is go to insult and it means bastard but in Urdu it is also used in meaning of Shareer (mischievous, mischief-monger i.e. trouble-maker). It was in this last meaning I used word Harami, here. 21.2 – Truth About Language I Employed, Dictionary Meanings Do Not Change Reality: (i) I personally make no excuse admitting about the type of language I employed in common parlance is unacceptable and some words such as Dalal, Kutta, Harami are outrageously insulting/abusive. Any Urdu speaker or even Punjabi speaker will be able to tell you this. Words I have used are exclusively used to insult, degrade, disrespect and belittle regardless how I have spinned their usage with the help of dictionary. Everyone speaking Urdu knows these words have no civilized usage. No intelligent, educated, and self respecting individual would allow such words to be used about them without some type of reaction regardless of what dictionaries record. (ii) Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is no different when compared to language I have employed. You can Halal it with dictionary strength and to be honest I didn’t encounter a abusive word which I couldn’t civilize with aid of dictionary and that is telling you something. (iii) You might have assumed Muhammed Ali is exagerating. I introduce you to nuclear options, MADAR CHOD. In Urdu and in English phrase used too commonly to insult and abuse someone through their mother. In Urdu it is MADAR CH*D and in English it literally means MOTHER F*CKER. In dictionary you will see one of its meaning is SHAREER which means mischievous and mischief-monger, here. How FAR is calling someone TROUBLE-MAKER compared to calling someone MOTHER F*CKER in Urdu and English? You be the judge. Would it not possible to civilize on dictionary strength lesser abusive words such as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust)? (iv) Most obvious, apparent, clear, undeniable words of abuse, insult … can be civilized on strength of dictionaries. Words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used i.e. mar kar mitti mein milnay wala in Urdu are obvious, apparent, clear, undeniable expression of insult and abuse. Deobandi scholarship on back of dictionaries is arguing nothing wrong was written by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. (v) Where will the rabbit hole end? What IF Shia employ abusive language about Abur Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and on back of Urdu dictionaries civilize their abuse? Will you than believe them? What IF someone resorted to MADAR CH*D Shaykh Thanvi and used it in meaning of SHAREER? Surrender your evil methodology of making Taweel of insult, abuse, disrespect before consequences of this evil Sunnah originated by your senior scholarship becomes too monstrous to even Taweel making Kafireen to bare. (vi) We Muslims make no Taweel nor accept Taweel of Akbar (major) or Asghar (minor) abuse. Especially not when the intended target is Prophets, Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Companions. We only seek repentance and that you desist and cease. 21.3 - True Objective In Using Percieved In Common Parlance Insulting Langugage: There were three reasons why I employed such language: (i) To demonstrate and expose Deobandi scholarship’s double standard. Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman and Deobandis who speak Urdu without consulting a dictionary will judge me as criminal on basis of common parlance (i.e. Urf Aam). When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insulted in common parlance by Deobandi senior scholarship Deobandis present Taweels with aid of dictionaries and than expect the Muslims to accept what they have invented. (ii) To demonstrate that even most obvious, apparent, clear, undeniably abusive words and language with aid of dictionaries can be civilised and presented as IF nothing bad was written. Deobandi scholarship has taken upon themselves to civilize and invent ingenious excuses to civilize insulting language used against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, and Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri. (iii) To demonstrate beyond shadow of doubt regardless what Taweels I present inate sense in every native Urdu speaker will tell him/her IF Taweel was intended meaning or most obvious natural apparent literal meaning to smack one’s understanding was intended. (iv) To demonstrate regardless how I attempt to justify no one would accept Taweels presented in defence as valid. Yet somehow the Kafireen expect the Muslims to buy their lies and distortions. 22.0 – Nominating Meanings OF Words In Insult Is Not End All Solution: (i) No matter how I persist and insist insults I have directed toward Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman were in these dictionary meanings no one will accept such an excuse. Why? There is unpsoken rule and agreement; nominating meanings of words in phrases where obvious understood meaning is insult/disrespect; is not enough to remove insult and objection. Any Deobandi commoner or Mullah who deems this as acceptable should demonstrate his/her commitment by declaring to their Abba Ji, Deobandi Masjid’s Mullah, and his Deobandi teachers in which meaning he/she will be using the words and than unleash some of exotic words. Such as Harami, Kutta, Dalal, and constantly remind we believe because we have nominated a meaning these words are not insulting, or not as bad as you have understood. Act on this and you will get your just dues very quickly. (ii) I was saying: Nominating special meaning to words in phrases which in common parlance denote insult in an attempt to lead away from obvious insulting insinuations is not a norm nor tolerated practice in general daily dealings nor in Shar’ri legalism. Deobandis nominating a special meaning for phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) does nothing to change, remove obvious insult/disrespect and hence it and author will not warrant a tolerant Shar’ri ruling. 23.0 - Minor Harmless Changes In Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Passage In Discussion: In statement mar kar mitti mein milnay wala end of paragraph wording has been changed. I have encountered three variations: (i) “ … banda hi banda heh.” Asad Book Depot, here. Maktaba Nadvia, here. (ii) “ … banda banda hi heh.” Dar Salafiyyah, here. (iii) “ … banda hi heh.” Maktaba Thanvi Deoband, here. Bayt ul-Quran, here. These alterations are inconsequential because they all convey meaning that human is human despite-all. Another variation is: (i) “Phir mar kar Ilah nahin huwa banda hi heh.” Markaz Dawat Wal Irshad, here. This is only version which has this wording. (ii) “Phir mar kar khuda nahin ban gaya” Maktaba Thanvi Deoband, here. Once again both convey the same meaning (i.e. than after death human has not become an Ilah/god but remains human) just different way of conveying same. 23.1 Revealing Major Problematic Distortions In Taqwiyat ul-Iman: I present to you three Urdu versions of Taqwiyat ul-Iman with three quotes and supporting evidence and some English versions. (i) Version ends on jo na kabi maray (one that does not die😞 ”Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die. From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" This version is supported by Dar Salafiyyah, here. Asad Book Depot, here. Maktaba Nadvia, here. Maktaba Naeemia, here. Maktaba Salfiyya, here. (ii) Version which has na kabi kam howay (nor one that reduces) at the end of na kabi maray (one that does not die😞 ”Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor is ever to reduce (na kabi maray na kabi kam howay). From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" This version has three prints supporting it. Shama Book agency, here. Maktaba Thanvi Deoband, here. Bayt ul-Quran, here. (iii) Version which completely distorts what was in original stating: “Meaning one or another day I will die and sleep in the bosom/lap of grave than I will not be deserving of prostration.” This is supported by Markaz Dawat Wal Irshad, here. Shaykh ul-Islam Academy, here. (iv) English version printed by Royal Asiatic Society in 1852: “Then I came to the Prophet and told him that the people of Herat worship their chief, and you are then most worthy of being worshipped. His Highness said to me, ‘Will you prostrate at my grave, IF you pass by it?’ I said, ‘No.’ Then, he said, ‘Do not worship me.’” The Proophet meant, that one day he would die, and return to the dust; and could not therefore be worthy of worship, and …” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Pages 362/362, here, 53/54, here, Translation by Mir Shahamat.] (v) “At this the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Then you must not do this too!” By this the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant to convey it to the people that the day would come when he (peace be upon him) would pass away and have an eternal sleep in the grave and then he (peace be upon him) would not be worthy of such prostrations.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page 74, here, here.] 23.2 – Taqwiyat ul-Iman An Evolving Text, Amendments, Omissions, Insertions Continue: (i) I just recalled another alteration which was mentioned, here. Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Maktaba Khalil version records, Muslims will fall into Shirk (Shirk mein parr’h jawen gay), here/here. Maktaba Naeemia version records Shirk mein bar’h jawen gay (will advance into Shirk), here. One insinuates WILL FALL and other denotes HAVING ALREADY FALLEN INTO SHIRK WILL ADVANCE FURTHER INTO SHIRK. (ii) Maktaba Khalil’s version in FOOTNOTE indicates that author has mentioned notions entertained about various idols and deities by idol-worshipers and Ahlu Ush-Shirk (people of polytheism). Which was indication contents have been omitted out of Maktaba Khalil’s print and when I checked Maktaba Naeemia’s version this was confirmed, here. (iii) In the same two versions Maktaba Naeemia states: “Aksar paranay baap daday MUSHRIK JAHIL guzray hen (majority of olden fathers and grandfathers were polytheist ignorants).” In Maktaba Khalil version has slight change: “Aksar paranay baap daday JAHIL MUSHRIK guzray hen (mority of olden fathers grandfathers were ignorant polytheists.” This change in order of words does not distort the conveyed meaning. 23.3 - Taqwiyat ul-Iman Its Gradual Evolution, Fears, And Our Responsibility: (i) I have highlighted evolution Taqwiyat ul-Iman has been subjected to by looking into just two paragraph which I had chance to compare. It would not be wrong to say that every new print of Taqwiyat ul-Iman introduces public to new changes. It contains omissions, additions, alterations, and deletions which publisher, or person ordering print desires. IF this ignoble practice of changing Taqwiyat ul-Iman at every print continues than I am afraid in an 100 year our great-grand-children will look into Taqwiyat ul-Iman and will not FIND contents which caused the Muslim scholarship to rise against Shaykh Dehalvi and his supporters. (ii) Deobandis are re-writing and changing history and it is upon us to hold them accountable and pass on what has been done by Deobandis so our descendants can recognize the enemies in their midst. Failure in this regard will only result researchers will accuse and arrive to conclusion Muslim enmity against Deobandism and Deobandi Mullahism had no truth to it. (iii) Taqwiyat ul-Iman is an evolving text. In some cases Deobandis and Wahhabis have been shamelessly distorting contents of original Taqwiyat ul-Iman to lessen crimes of Shaykh Dehalvi and in other changes are less meaningful but alterations none the less. (vi) Mullah Zameel moaned about Shaykh Abu Hasan distorting Taqwiyat ul-Iman which in reality is not the case. Now we will see IF he has GALL to target Mullah Sajid Khan and other Deo-band’s (i.e. demon-group) minions involved in introducing changes to Taqwiyat ul-Iman enabling plausible deniability and contents of Taqwiyat ul-Iman less concrete. 24.0 – Turning Shirk/Insult Away From Apparent According To Shaykh Dehalvi: (i) Followers of Shaykh Dehalvi have spent their entire lives suggesting FAR-FETCHED meanings of what Shaykh Dehalvi wrote but the man, the criminal, and Shaytan incarnate lived according to literalism principle: “Yes, IF he says, O Allah give me something for sake of Shaykh Abdul Qadir than it is correct/right. Meaning one should not utter such a word from which reeks stench of Shirk or disrespect. He is so magnificent and He is such an independent/unNeedy King that to hold accountable on a single point/deed and to reward on account of a single point/deed is His merit only. And this matter is completely senseless that (someone) apparently utters word of disrespect and than some other meaning is understood. There are many other ocasions in which one can speak in riddle and hidden-speech. What is there need for such (speech) in regards to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Shama Book Agency, Page75, here.] Shaykh Dehalvi deems it senseless to resort to suggesting FAR-FETCHED meanings to words which obviously/apparently denote insult and disrespect. (ii) In this light I once again bring to your attention words of Shaykh Dehalvi in which he wrote that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said:“… 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 …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] “… 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) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration!" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not utter these words but Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi did use this language about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Who will continue to go against Shaykh Dehalvi’s words and resort to presenting FAR-FETCHED meanings to OBVIOUS, CLEAR, APPARENT, EXPLICIT language insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? (iii) Stop behaving as a Desi Kohta and stop with FAR-FETCHED meanings. Shaykh Dehalvi wanted readers to read Taqwiyat ul-Iman and other books in literal sense. In literal sense everyone including Deobandi scholarship agrees literalism is indeed insulting and disrespecting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which is why Deobandi scholarship is engaged in presenting FAR-FETCHED interpretations of clear Kufr. 25.0 – A Closer Look Into Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala Text: (i) Mullah Zameel ar-Rahman used Maktaba Naeemia’s Urdu version of Taqwiyat ul-Iman: “He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die (na kabi maray). 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 88, Urdu] Maktaba Naeemia’s version relied on a source which had expunged words na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (not one that die nor is ever to reduce) and these words existed in original Taqwiyat ul-Iman as demonstrated by Shama Book Agency version: “He then said: Do not do so. ”Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor is ever to reduce (na kabi maray na kabi kam howay). 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, here, Shama Book Angency.] Word ka’m (i.e. to reduce) in Feroz ul-Lughat, Page1026, here, dictionary also means tho’rra (i.e. a little) and with it shares related words. Kam howay is old Urdu expression whose modern equivalent is kam ho (to reduce). In Farhang Asifia, Volume 3, Page 554 records entry on kam (less). On Page 555, here, closest expression to kam howay/ho is kam hona. Both entries share same meanings as Feroz ul-Lughat. Despite the dictionary meanings Shaykh Dehalvi used na kabi kam howay (does not every reduce) to mean does not ever decomposes but I will go along with literal apparent common parlance meaning of kam howay. This leads to question why were the words removed? 25.1 – Answering Why Words Na Kabi Kam Howay Were Removed: (i) What is correlation between saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is mar kar mitti mein milnay walay (one whom is to die and mix into dust) and between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the One na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever to dies nor is ever to reduce)? (ii) All living matter with exception of Prophets; death causes their bodies do decompose. They decompose and mix into dust as dust but for that to happen another thing also has to happen to body and that is deceased’s body must reduce in shape, size, and weight. This establishes both phrase; mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) and kam hona/howay (to reduce) are connected with each other; I would say these two phrases have been used to convey same meanings. (iii) Taqiwyat ul-Iman’s words: (1) “… mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) …” V.S. Mein bi aik din mar kar kabi kam honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and reduce). (2) “… na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever die nor is ever to reduces) …” V.S. Na kabi maray na kabi mitti mein milay (is not ever die nor is ever to mix into dust). Words mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) and kam howay (to reduce) in the above quote explain each other hence interchangable as demonstrated: “He then said: Do not do so. ”Meaning, I will one day die (and) reduce (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor one that mixes into dust." (iv) In conclusion words na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever to die nor is ever to reduce) were expunged from earliest Taqwiyat ul-Iman prints because these establish phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala walay (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is upon its literal meanings. I will explain. 25.2 - Taweel Fraud Exposed With Shaykh Dehalvi’s And Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Help: Shaykh Dehalvi wrote: “He then said: Do not do so. ”Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor is ever to reduce (na kabi maray na kabi kam howay). 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, here, Shama Book Angency.] I will be speaking in language of Taqwiyat ul-Iman and will apply its logic and principle to demonstrate phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is upon its apparent,literal meanings through question and answer. (i) Who IS derserving of prostration? Prostration is only due to the One being who does not die nor one that reduces. Who is that being? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Why is He deserving of prostration? He will not die and mix into dust (hence will NOT reduce thus deserving of prostration). (ii) Who is NOT deserving of prostration? One whom dies and reduces. Who is that being according to Shaykh Dehalvi and Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s passage? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Why is he NOT derserving of prostration? He will die and mixt into dust (hence reduce thus NOT deserving of prostration). (iii) The key which establishes beyond argument phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is upon its literal apparent meaning is na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever to dies nor is ever to reduce). This phrase serves as a and was issued as a principle: “… Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (… prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor is ever to reduce).” (iv) Dying and mixing into dust as dust is connected with dying and reducing. According to logic and principle of Shaykh Dehalvi in Taqwiyat ul-Iman death and reduction than mixing into dust is reason due to which prostration to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not legitimate. Prostration is legitimate right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because He does not die and mix into dust through reduction/decomposition. This establishes Shaykh Dehalvi intended literal obvious meanings of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) and not dictionary meanings. (v) This was FINAL nail in the head of KAFIR. 26.0 - Establishing Shaykh Dehalvi’s Intent To Insult The Messenger OF Allah: (i) Shaykh Dehalvi used following words about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) …” He could have used same mar kar mitti mein milnay wala expression for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to keep in with the ongoing contextual theme of death and decay. Meaning: Prostration is only due to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because He does not mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). Shaykh Dehalvi realized words he used were inappropriate hence he did not use same for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Instead he used more respectful and appropriate tone of language:“… na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever die nor is ever to reduce) …” (ii) Alternatively Shaykh Dehalvi also could have used tone of na kabi maray ka kabi kam howay (is not ever die nor is ever to reduces) when writing regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instead of mein bi aik din mar kar kam honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). Meaning he could have wrote regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 Mein bi aik din mar kar kabi kam honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and reduce). (iii) The switch in language indicates Shaykh Dehalvi noticed tone of language, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is harsh and inappropriate hence when writing about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Shaykh Dehalvi changed disrespectful tone of language. This demonstrates Shaykh Dehalvi with intent used disrespectful langauge in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which he did not deem appropriate for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 27.0 - Hypocrites And Disbelievers OF Old And Modern World Not Too Far Apart: (i) “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.” [Ref: Q16:125] (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about Munafiqeen of old: “And those (hypocrites) who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, "We intended only the best." And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.” [Ref:9:107] Hypocrites of old erected a Masjid but the modern ones raised a Madrassa in Deoband with same evil objectives. (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says:“The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them (accordingly). Indeed, the hypocrites - it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.” [Ref: Q9:67] “And We send not the messengers except as bringers of good tidings and warners. And those who disbelieve dispute by falsehood to invalidate thereby the truth, and have taken My verses and that of which they are warned in ridicule.” [Ref: Q18:56] The spawns evil have contributed strife, edicts of Kufr/Shirk against Muslims, insulted the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and said Madrassa has produced professional hypocrites to defend insults hurled at the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iv) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) intructs the beleivers to not to use words in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which can be misconstrued by insult him: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] Words which is abusive by default have greater prohibition because rule of Fiqh is IF lower is prohibited than anything greater than lowest degree is also prohibited. (v) The Munafiqeen of old excused their mocking and insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saying: “And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His messenger that you were mocking?" [Ref: Q9:65] The Deobandis have invented new excuse to legitimize their OBVIOUS insults hurled toward the Messenger: It doesn’t mean that dictionary has another meaning of this word. Halaling the abuse by playing DICTIONARY DICTIONARY game. (vi) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “And already were messengers ridiculed before you, but those who mocked them were enveloped by that which they used to ridicule.” [Ref: Q6:10] True are words of my Lord. They mocked and insulted the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and the Kafireen made excuses but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enveloped them in their own insults. (vii) “Indeed, those who disbelieve will be addressed, "The hatred of Allah for you was greater than your hatred of yourselves when you were invited to faith, but you refused." [Ref: Q40:10]“And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers." Even if satan was inviting them to the punishment of the blaze?” [Ref: Q31:21] “Indeed, Satan is an enemy to you; so take him as an enemy. He only invites his party to be among the companions of the Blaze.” [Ref: Q35:6] Wama alayna il-lal balagh ul-mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Yeh Fatwah Chawal e Zaman ka heh magr bilkul durust heh. Hammen kia zeroorat aisay dammoon ki? Quran uth gaya joh abh ham gorroon aur kali ratoon ka dam karnay lagay.

Hussain Ahmad Madani said meanings of word is based on Urf Aam in his book Shihab as-Saqib ... referrence darkar heh.

bump.

Responding To Deobandi Reaction On Article -: Taqwiyat ul-Iman - Shaykh Dehalvi Wrote Prophet Said: One Day I Will Die And Mix Into Dust. Introduction: (i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman alleged that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: I will one day die and mix into dust. Shaykh not only attributed a lie to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but he also wrote, I will one day die and mix into dust, as IF Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) himself said it. This disrespectful tone of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is surrounded by other rude and disrespectful insinuations. The original article can be read, here. (ii) It has been nearly five months when a Deobandi contacted via private message and introduced himself as a Talib ul-Ilm (i.e. seeker of knowledge). He shared with me his rebuttal to the original article linked above. He also shared link of a Deobandi WordPress blog which aimed respond to Sunni arguments on, I will one day die and mix into dust, and challenged me to refute contents of WordPress blog. Link to the WordPress page will be shared in the coming rebuttal – my rebuttal to WordPress can be read, here. (iii) Deobandi Talib’s rebuttal was mix between, insults hurled toward Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) which wasn’t surprising. Typically a habit Deobandis who have done Chilla on grave/book ignoble and shameless Hussain Ahmad Tandvi. I have removed all such comments. The other part of rebuttal was demonstration of academic lack and not thinking arguments through. All this was nicely gift wrapped: “We should look at the issue academically and not emotionally because emotional involvement impairs our judgement.” A brilliant example of: DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO. Controversial And Insulting Statement Of 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. 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 88, Urdu] Translation: “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) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die. 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 88, Urdu] 0.0 - Deobandi Talib ul-Ilm’s Opening Barrage And My Response: He wrote: “Salam. I wasn’t to say your article is a representation of typical Barelwi lies, distortions, and campaign of misinformation against Uqabir of Ulamah of Deoband. The level of deception in your article is astounding and I am not surprised because you’re inheritor of 125 plus years Barelwi culture of … I will be pointing out something’s but I hope that you respond and refute this article, *** LINK REMOVED ***” (i) What can I say! We will both see IF not both at least readers and seekers of truth will see who has been telling lies, engaged in distortions, campaign of misinformation, and deception. (ii) Visualize IF there was no deception, no lies, no misinformation, and no distortion on part of Sunni scholarship of Indian subcontinent. Instead all against Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and Taqwiyat ul-Iman was legitimate Sunni criticism and issues were bad as Sunni scholarship has said they are than what is the worse you? What will be your recourse in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) when you discover you were heir of two-hundred plus years of Deobandi scholarship defending a major Kufr and insisting insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Ayn/pure Islam. What is the worse that can happen to you on the day? Discover you died a Murtad, and discover all your life you’ve strived to defend a Kufr, said disrespect and insults directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was absolutely OK. Give this idea space in your head and just think about your Aakhira. I telling you be selfish, think about yourself only, not my Uqabir have been oppressed, not who is right/wrong. Just think about you and your Aakhira on basis of possibility that you have been lied to, and it is Deobandi scholarship engaged in lies, distortions, and has been engaged in a massive cover-up through misinformation and deception. (iii) I will also unpack the damage on my side. We the Sunni Muslims and scholarship make Takfir of Deobandi Uqabir unjustly and it returns to us as per prophetic teaching, invalid Takfir returns. And let us suppose we get no exemption from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), that is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deems no excuse valid enough to lift returning Kufr from us, and Kufr returning is major Kufr not minor. In this worse case scenario we are Kafir. In Sunni and Deobandi worst case scenarios let me ask you: Who stood up, even unto Kufr, due to love, respect, dignity, honour and in defence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Between Sunni and Deobandi – in our worse case scenario: Who will enter hell knowing Aakhira was lost due to love, for sake respect of, and in defence of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) honour/dignity? Who will enter hell knowing Aakhira was lost because we deemed insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) absolutely OK, and knowing we deemed a Kufr Ayn/pure Islam, and promoted it? 1.0 - Argument -: Deobandi Acting On Evil Sunnah Of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani: You wrote: “You’re lying about ... You have no proof that Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi deliberately intended to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Your … Hazrat …” I had to civilize your three sentence paragraph because I didn’t want evil Sunnah to spread: “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 theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] (i) You insulted Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma), calling him vile names, including mocking his complexion. You’re truly heir of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s abusive trait as expertly demonstrated in his Shahab as-Saqib. Page 18 onwards Radd Shahab as-Saqib Bar Wahhabi Khayb, here, has highlighted 640 occurrences of insults directed to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Don’t be disheartened keep trying you will become reach Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani level in couple of decades. (ii) You hurled all that abuse toward, Sayyidi, Sanadi, Mujtahid, Mujadid, Ala Hadhrat, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, al-Qadiri (rahimullah) because he defended RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) against the insults, abuse, and disrespect coming from Deobandi scholarship. I quote you a Hadith, not that it will make any difference to you, but I will establish evidence against you: “Narrated Aisha: Once Hassan bin Thabit asked the permission of the Prophet to lampoon (i.e. compose satirical poetry defaming) the infidels. The Prophet said, "What about the fact that I have common descent with them?" Hassan replied, "I shall take you out of them as a hair is taken out of dough." Narrated `Urwa: I started abusing Hassan in front of Aisha, whereupon she said. "Don't abuse him, for he used to defend the Prophet (with his poetry).” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H73, here.] I tell you: Do not abuse Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) he defended Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with his speech and pen – against sophisticated insults, disrespect, and out right abuse of so called Muslims. 1.1 - Proof Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi Deliberately Insulted Prophet Of Allah: You said I have no proof Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi deliberately insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “You have no proof that Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi deliberately intended to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s own confession that he used Tayz language: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is Tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were of Shirk Khafi (hidden Shirk) I have stated them as (Shirk) Jalli (i.e.clear/major Shirk). Due to these reasons I fear publishing of this will definitely lead to strife. IF I were to stay here than I would have lectured over these topics systematically over eight to ten years but my intention is to go for Hajj and upon returning from there I have plans for Jihad. Due to this I am unable to do this and I see no other will take this weight/responsibility. Hence I have written this book and there will be strife due to it but my expectation is that after fighting strife all will sort themselves out this is my opinion. IF your persons opinion is in support of publishing it than it will be published otherwise it will be destroyed.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] Not only he acknowledges disrespectful language he also acknowledged altering religion of Islam. Issuing judgments in which minor (Khafi) Shirk was made major (Jalli) Shirk. There is no Ilah except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the door of Prophet-hood has closed. Hence none can change Islam. What Shaykh Dehalvi acknowledges about changing Islamic ruling is itself major Kufr. 1.2 - Meanings Of Word Tayz In Dictionary: In Feroz ul-Lughat meaning of Tayz are recorded as: “(1) Sharp edged, (2) harsh; mean; stern, irritated, (3) extremely powerful … (4) fast, quick, (5) sly, alert, intelligent, (6) ill-mannered, angry, (7) sturdy, strong, (8) extreme, harsh, (9) dominant, superior, (10) hot, (11) active, ready/prepared, (12) corrupt/discord-creator, show-off. […] someone who has eyes for detail, or one who has capability of seeing ahead … (17) emotional, ill-tempered/fiery-tempered (18) expensive, unattainable.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lughat, Page 403, here.] Readers should note in the controversial statement Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi clearly employed words Tayz and Tashaddad to mean two different things. Hence one cannot say here he used Tayz in meaning of Tashaddad because he himself has employed both words to mean two different things. In context he is acknowledging being extreme in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and accepts he is guilty of using ill-mannered language. This is enough to prove Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi deliberately and knowingly employed disrespectful language in regards to Prophets and Saliheen of Ummah. 2.0 – Your Saying -: You Have Insulted And Abused Shaykh Dehalvi: You said: “You have out-rightly insulted and abused Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi (ra). This is not how a Muslim should behave in general and toward a scholar.” (i) In case of following I have to say that I only highlighted Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s high level of Taqwa, adherence to Shari’ah and control over his deviant urges for sake of pleasing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “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.” You cannot be really mad at me due to this. I do agree the way it was conveyed is not very heart warming. (ii) How about this Taweel? Does this dampen your rage? IF no than why do you think your Taweelaat of insults and abuse hurled at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shaykh Dehalvi be any comfort to my and aching hearts of believers who love the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! IF you loved the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as you love Shaykh Dehalvi you wouldn’t be defending him nor his insults. You stood up for whom you love and I for the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) You protested I called him bastard. I did not call him bastard to insult him but gave a example of how a untrue statement can be abuse/insult. I wrote: “Linguistically the words 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.” I used statement about Shaykh Dehalvi as an example of how untrue words can be insult: “How so? Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi you’re a BASTARD. That’s how so!” I wasn’t insulting Shaykh Dehalvi merely demonstrating truth of my claim that untrue statements are used as insults. (iv) Further more there was question mark on Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s legitimacy and it was raised in his presence and I merely based my statement on what was recorded by your Uqabir, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi on page 48 of Arwah e Salasa: “Respectable Khan Sahib said once Maulvi Muhammad Ismail Sahib Shaheed was delivering a sermon. During sermon a man stood up and said: Maulvi Sahib we have heard you’re BASTARD. He in great humility replied that senior you have heard wrong witnesses to my mother’s and father’s Nikkah are present/alive in Bud’hana, Phalt, and in Delhi itself are the Hindus, and after saying this, started sermon again.” [Ref: Arwah e Salasa, Page 48, Hikayat 44, here.] I definitely do not believe he was BASTARD. Once again I do acknowledge I could have phrased it different and made better choice of words. Or gave a different example altogether. Yet similarly to how Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi could have made better choice of words but he DELIBERATELY chose not to and I chose not to as well. My intention in using back handers was purely demonstrating how Deobandis will whine about Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi being insulted yet no Ghayrat of Iman when he insulted the greatest in all creation – Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And I believe I achieved that. 2.1 – Your Saying -: Muslim Does Not Abuse Another Muslim Or A Scholar: (i) You wrote: “This is not how a Muslim should behave in general and toward a scholar.” Do you think degrading and insulting language used in Taqwiat ul-Iman is how a Muslims speak about the Prophets, angels, Saliheen, and Awliyah of Allah? Why don’t you the point finger toward Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and say the same with additions. How about pointing that finger toward Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani whose Shahab as-Saqib is master piece of insults and give him some ear bashing. I am Muslim and Islam is my religion and I know better what it allows and when; so bottle your selective righteous rage and sit down. Thou art not holier than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 2.2 - Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Dismantles Insulter Of Prophet Muhammad: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about one who insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “And do not obey every worthless habitual swearer. (And) scorner, going about with malicious gossip. A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful. Cruel, moreover, and an illegitimate pretender. When Our verses are recited to him, he says: ‘Legends of the former peoples.’ We will brand him upon the snout.” [Ref: Q68:10/16] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Not conforming to Ayah in manners and language to be used for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is good as disbelieving/rejecting it and saying it is legend of earlier times. (ii) You should look into Tafasir of verse I quoted. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, here. Words: “Coarse-grained crude moreover ignoble an adopted son of Quraysh.” Also Tafsir Ibn Abbas, here. The words: “He is stuck with the folk while he is not of them.” The so called Tafsir Ibn Kathir has similar entry to previously mentioned, here. As is typical of Arab Wahhabi way of converting deceased scholars to Wahhabism they have omitted what Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) actually wrote. He clearly states Arab poets and connected word Zanim to, and Ikrimah said Zanim means person born out of wedlock, here. (iii) Man described in the Ayah insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), read from verse one onwards, and in response to his consistent barrage Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed these Ayaat. This is the only time in Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employed such harsh character reveal and part of it was making apparent his illegitimacy and indirectly calling him an animal as revealed by usage of word snout. This also explains why man questioned Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s legitimacy in his presence. Typically illegitimates insult/abuse and those who have no Haya whatsoever eventually work up the ladder of people they insult until they target Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). These Ayaat are also supporting evidence, as long as it is exception and not norm, of degrading, insulting, and discrediting, with-truth, someone who habitually insults and degrades Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 3.0 – Your Saying -: Your Founding-Scholarship Didn’t Make Takfir Of Shaykh Dehalvi: You said: “You made mass Takfir of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat Deoband including Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed which your Uqabir did not.” There are three issues that need addressing: (i) charge of mass Takfir, (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Takfir by senior scholarship representing Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, (iii) and by myself. 3.1 - Mass Takfir Issue - Personal Experience About Deobandis: (i) You did not cite where I made declared all Deobandis are Kafir. Following may have lead you to your conclusion: “The only exception is a man/woman who has been programed by Shayateen to accept Kufr as Islam and one who is a Kafir.” I do not believe all Deobandis are Kafir. I was in contact with a Deobandi Aalim, he passed away, he called Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s, and Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s problematic statements as BAKWAS (i.e. none-sense) when I quoted him what they have written and told me to not to bather with these idiots. I have personally met so many Deobandis when I have quoted them statements of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, one brother, put his hands together, as IF he is asking me to forgive him, almost tears in his eyes, hands shaking, pleaded me to stop quoting texts. He did not want to hear anything like that about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), I stopped immediately. I have many more such experiences but I will just limit to two. (ii) Deobandi is a label and a general identification of sectarian alignment of individual ascribing to Deobandism. To me and Sunni scholarship Deobandi label is not a marker detailing and indicating all your theological positions. Hence I and Sunni scholarship does not and will not make Takfir of entire Deobandi population. 3.2 - Mass Takfir Issue -: Types Of Deobandis And Takfir Of Only One Type: (i) Deobandis are a huge population of millions and in this huge population. There are those: (1) Who have never heard what was written by their senior scholarship, (2) have heard but have never paid attention, (3) have encountered these statements and rejected them, (4) have taken these insults on board as Islam as correct and defend these insults. Considering these divisions how can I and Sunni scholarship make Takfir of entire Deobandism? Truth is my statement is regarding the 4th type Deobandis (i.e. “…have taken these insults on board as Islam, as correct, and defend these insults.”). (ii) Any Deobandi, Hayati, Mamati, whoever/whatever … believes in it, deems it is correct, and stands-up in defence of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement mitti mein milnay wala hoon is upon major Kufr and death upon it without repentance is death upon Kufr. This is the position of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and position I subscribe to. There is no blanket carpet bombing with Takfir.(iii) IF you want to see blanket nullification of Islam of Muslims than you should read Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s opening paragraph of Taqwiyat ul-Iman where he wrote majority of Muslims of subcontinent are upon Shirk and yet claim to be Muslims: “First one should listen to is; a lot of Shirk is spreading amongst people and pure Tawheed is rare. Yet most people do not understand the meaning of Tawheed and Shirk and claim to have Eman (i.e. faith) but in reality are caught in Shirk. So firstly meaning … in discussions. Conclusion – all that which the Hindus enact for their idols so do these masquerading Muslims enact for saints, Prophets, leaders (i.e. Imams), Martyrs, angels and fairies. And yet continue to claim to be Muslims, subhan-Allah, (from) this face, and such a claim (of being Muslim), honourable Allah truthfully said in chapter Yusuf: "And most of them believe not in Allah except while they associate others with Him." [Ref: 12:106] Meaning most people who claim to have Iman they are caught-up in Shirk. Then if there was…” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul Iman, Page 7/8, here.] 4.0 - Scholarship’s Takfir Issue - Scholarship’s Position Regarding Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi: Imam Muhammad Fazal Haq Khayrabadi (rahimullah) in his Tahqeeq ul-Fatwa Fi Abtal at-Taghwa declared Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi Kafir. His Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi was attested to by seventeen most prominent students of Imam Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehalvi (rahimullah), here. Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah) is reported to have said in his conversations that he deems issue of Shaykh Dehalvi’s Takfir like of Yazid, here. Meaning he does not make Takfir, nor protest, nor contends with who makes Dehalvi’s/Yazid’s Takfir, and prefers silence over him. Hence I hardly opposed senior scholarship instead I only exercised liberty to direct Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in accordance with Imam Muhammad Fazal Haq Khayrabadi’s (rahimullah) stance and principle methodology of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah). 4.1 - Scholarship’s Takfir Issue -: Imam Ahmad Raza’s Refrain And Possible Reasons: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat due to caution did not make Takfir and he mentioned this in his books, here. Here Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) did not specify why he refrained from Takfir but he stated it is due to principle, weakest of justifications lifts Takfir. In al-KaukabaTush Shahabiyyah Fi Kufriyati Abil Wahabiyyah Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) stated Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s being upon major Kufr is established with Tawatur but refrains from direct Takfir. He gives no specific detail which impedes him from direct Takfir, here. In Subhan as-Subhu regarding Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi heh does state Takfir is to be held back by Judge to weakest of weak reasons, here. Once again he does not specify reason which compelled him to hold back direct Takfir. 4.2 - Scholarship’s Takfir Issue -: Four Possible Reasons OF No Direct Takfir: In my understanding there are three reasons due to all, or three, or two, or just one which compelled Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) hold back Takfir: (i) It was reported Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi repented from Kufrs of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. (ii) There is ever so slight wiggle room in his statements to lift direct Takfir. It could be that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) held view there exist impossibly possible Taweelaat of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s insulting language hence he put away his pen before Takfir. (iii) Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) may have known that Taqwiyat ul-Iman was disowned by earlier Deobandi scholarship, some questioned the authorship, others deemed it tempered. End. Hence Imam Ahmad Raza may have withheld direct Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi due to these uncertainties but we do not know for sure. We can only speculate. 5.0 - Why No Takfir -: Notion Of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Repentance Was Popular: Scholars have said there were reports circulating Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi repented before he died. Allamah Syed Naeem ud-Deen Muradabadi (rahimullah) mentioned this in his At-Tayyib ul-Bayan, here. Senior Deobandi scholar Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi was also questioned about reports of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s repentance which is indication it was widely spread notion, here. Furthermore historical accounts record that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi debated in Peshawar and after crushing defeat he repented, here. Author of Afkar Wa Siyasat Ulama e Deoband references book Hidayat Us-Saliheen BarHashia Tawqeer ul-Haq, Page87, of Shaykh Nawab Qutb ud-Deen Dehalvi but despite my extensive research to source this referrence from original but to no avail. All this is indicates notion of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s repentance was popular. 5.1 - Why No Takfir -: Possibility Of An Impossible Taweel Preventing Direct Takfir: Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) clearly and emphatically stated in many of his books that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement are clear/explicit insults and Kufr. Yet despite this it could be that Imam believed there were impossibly possible along side other factors contribute to justification to withhold Takfir. Consider following a example of an impossibly possible Taweel. Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi is kutta ka bacha (child of dog). The nearest in English would be son of bitch. Or in Urdu it would be kutti ka bacha (child of bitch). This expression in Urdu is clear, explicit, unwarranted, inexcusable abuse. Yet IF practice of Husn Zann is strong with you than you will be able to turn this abuse into a positive. Dog is loyal therefore he meant loyal man’s child. Another example for illustration. Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi is Walad ul-Haraam. Walad ul-Haraam is Arabic expression indicating illegitimate birth. Being born out of wedlock and impolitely, bastard. Word Haraam is also used in meaning of sacred/holy as in Masjid al-Haraam. Once again one with force of positivity and strong attitude of, I must have good opinion of a Muslims, may understand Shaykh Thanvi birth was special/sacred kind. These Taweelaat are possible but impossible to accept. Such Taweelaat of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statements are possible but are plausibly impossible. Maybe Sayyidi Ala Hazrat took such impossible Taweelat due to his excessive care of Takfir into account and weighed them alongside other factors hence refrained from direct Takfir. 5.2 - Why No Takfir -: Possibility False Ascription To Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi: (i) In Munazra Jhang against Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi argued Taqwiyat ul-Iman is not Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s book but it is wrongly ascribed to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, here. He was asked to cite source for his claim and he said it was position of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani and it is recorded in his (letters) Maktoobat, here. The said letter indicates Shaykh Madani lacked confidence in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and records him saying other seniors had reservations about Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Shaykh Madni’s and Shaykh Jhangvi’s assertion about Taqwiyat ul-Iman was not too outlandish. It is known books were falsely attributed to scholars like Shah Wali-Ullah Muhaddith al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and others. Including contents of books being tempered with to fit a sectarian narrative. Hence a book being attributed to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is entirely possible but in case of Taqwiyat ul-Iman the assertion it was the case is not true. (ii) It is worth pointing out that Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) promptly refuted this assertion in debate citing Deobandi sources proving that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi indeed wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman. I referrence Urdu sources he quoted to prove his stance, here. Also Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi categorically defends and deems Taqwiyat ul-Iman authoritative work of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. 5.3 - Why No Takfir – My Opinion Why Ala Hazrat Made No Direct Takfir: In my opinion Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) took these three including non-mentioned reasons and refrained from direct Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. IF I had to choose the strongest possible candidate than it was reports of his repentance that forced him to withhold Takfir. There is no doubt Imam (rahimullah) deemed statements of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi as Kufr clear/explicit. And stated anyone who defends these statements or deems them Islam is upon Kufr. 6.0 - Why I Made Takfir And Why I Will Now Refrain From Takfir: (i) With regards to Shaykh Dehalvi’s repentance these reports lacked authoritative validation hence I reject them. Report of his repentance were dismissed by likes of Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, here. In regards to possible Taweelaat my position is that these are too outlandish and impossible to be acceptable. In regards to Taqwiyat ul-Iman not being authored work of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. I am of opinion Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani only rejected authorship of Taqwiyat ul-Iman because he deemed contents of it undefendable and too extreme and insulting to allow meaningful defence. Hence he chucked the bath out the window to protect the baby. Shaykh Madani was belied by his very own senior scholarship likes of Shaykh Gangohi who vehemently defended Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s authorship and contents. In addition there is huge, huge amount of evidence establishing authorship of Taqwiyat ul-Iman via continuous chain of transmission from and to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Due to these reasons I made Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and in agreement with Imam Fazal Haq Khayrabadi’s (rahimullah) position. (ii) Stance of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) regarding Ismail Dehalvi is better and I retreat to the safety of Iman and Islam in his stance. IF Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi died without repentance he died a Kafir with or without my Takfir. 7.0 - Argument -: Evidence Of TUM Usage In Poetical Verses In Praise Of Prophet: You said: “In many poetical verses in praise word tum/you is used to for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Many which Barelwis are known to recite. No one has ever has charged them of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Based on this I would say you’re biased toward Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed (ra).” You attempted to justify usage of TUM by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in here: “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 …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] (i) It is absolutely true that in poetical verses, Naat’s, word TUM is indeed used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but poetry is not every day speech. Rules poetry are not same as your every day speech. Just because word TUM is used for seniors in age and rank in poetry does that warrant usage of TUM in daily life. Try saying TUM to your Abba and when he bitch-slaps you try to justify your usage of TUM to him citing poetry as source. IF that is too daring than visit your Deobandi Mullah and especially IF he is way older than you in age/rank and say, TUM, TUM, TUM. And when the Masjid committee and his bully’s smack you senseless because Mullah was being disrespected than you tell them; in poetry TUM is used for seniors in age and rank. I hope they will beat some sense in you. Daily regular speech is not governed by conventions of poetry. (ii) IF my objection was based on TUM in context of a poetical verse written in praise of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. And you quoted me usage of TUM in such poetical verses and established it was accepted norm than I would accept you have proven me wrong. But usage of TUM objected to is conventional regular ordinary speech and I believe the Abba Ji’s Jhoti/slipper and Mullah Bully’s Masjid committee goons have convinced you that in conventional speech it is not accepted nor justified hence you should repent. 7.1 - Poetical Convention Regarding TUM Explained: (i) In poetry the usage of TUM is of two types. When it is used in formal usage is in meaning of AAP and when used informally than it is in meaning of TUM. In poetical verses i.e. Naat’s TUM is FORMAL when it is used seniors in age and rank. Hence even though word is TUM the understanding is FORMAL in meaning of AAP. (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not writing poetry in praise of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He was translating a conversation between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and a companion recorded in Hadith. How can poetry’s rules justify usage of TUM in everyday conversations? 8.0 - Argument -: Arabic Anta/You Permits Translation Of It To Tum/You: You said: “Words used in the Hadith permit him to translate anta to tum.” (i) I really have no argument or defence against this point of yours because it is grammatically totally valid point. Yet I will appeal to your sense of Tameez (manners) and Haya (shame). IF someone used ANTA for your Abba Ji and you were responsible for translating from Arabic to Urdu so your Abba Ji could understand what was being said will you translate that ANTA to TUM, or Aap? Will you say Abba Ji he is saying: TUM said this much money will be loaned to him? Or will you say Abba Ji he is saying: AAP said this much money will be loaned to him? I am just curious. How will you translate this ANTA in this context? What IF your brother translated ANTA to mean TUM while referring to your and his Abba Ji? Will you ponder; grammar allows ANTA to mean TUM. Or will you say to brother: Have you no Tameez (manners)? Will you accept IF he says ANTA allows TUM translation? (ii) IF you wouldn’t and I know you wouldn’t accept nor tolerate this bad-Tameezi (ill-manners) in connection with your mother and father than how can you even contemplate justifying such ill-manners for the Messengers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? It is such a shame that ones that you love, respect, care about, ones you deem your own, your blood would boil. For the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you’re attempting to legalize this bad-Tameezi on grounds of grammar allows it. (iii) Why such treatment of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Why don’t you say the truth: ‘I have no love, respect, care about anyone who is not my own in my heart and mind.’ Truth is you do not believe the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is your own and when you believe he is you will not tolerate any disrespect even IF grammar allows it like in case of your Abba Ji. We all stand for ones we love, respect, care-about, and deem our own, and hurt when they are insulted. For now your love, respect and own-ness is for Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and you will make excuses and hurt for him. 9.0 - Argument -: Translation OF Problematic State Is In Accordance With Arabic: You wrote: “As much as I am able to understand Arabic it seems translation, jo too guzray meri qabr par, is correct translation of text of Hadith. Urdu wording ...” (i) You were referring to following part of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation: “He said: Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it?” Unfortunately I am not able to understand Arabic in such details but I can use online resources to check your claim. I copied the Arabic relevant part and used Google translation and this is the translation AI produced: “What do you think, if you passed by my grave, would you prostrate to it?” And this seems to indicate your claim may not be correct but I will not questioned your Arabic knowledge. Let us suppose your claim is correct. My question to you is: Was there no better alternative and better translation than how Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translated relevant part of Hadith? Even biological Non-Intelligent AI translated part of Hadith in best way possible and Shaykh was biologically intelligent and animate. 9.1 – Argument -: Jo Too Guzray Meri Qabr Par Is Not Offensive: You said: “…is correct translation of text of Hadith. Urdu wording has no offensive connotations as well. Nothing to do with how an alleged ...” (i) I will not contend with your saying the Urdu translation of relevant part of Hadith is inoffensive and I will go on to say Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not to be blamed for any misapplication. Yet in addition to this I will say there is extremely thin line which would definitively change the meaning of phrase, jo too guzray meri qabr par, and that thin line is addition of word, say. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation is 50/50. It could be changed to any direction with bit of grammatical acrobatics. Addition of, say, which I initially read into translation without even realizing it. This say will make the translation definitively offensive as in, jo too guzray meri qabr par say. (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the companions in the following verse to not to use RAINA while addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instead use UNDHURNA: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word Raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] In short the usage of RAINA was prohibited because Jews used it to insult and mock Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by distorting its pronunciation. To prevent it Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggested alternative – a word which could not be used to insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). There were/are certainly better options to translate part of Hadith in discussion and that translations would have been in accordance with Undhurna. I was/am uncertain about Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi motives to why he translated it as he did due to following: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were …” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] Despite my uncertainties about Shaykh Dehalvi’s motives his translation is blameless. 9.2 – Your Saying -: MuhammedAli Speaking Through Deobandi Shaykh: Your saying: “… no offensive connotations as well. Nothing to do with how an alleged Deobandi Shaykh used the words. It seems you’re speaking through Deobandi Shaykh.” (i) You said it seems to you that I MuhammedAli is speaking my point of view through the character of ‘Deobandi Shaykh’. Maybe I was lying. Maybe it was all a ploy to nail the point that person speaks his point of view through someone else. As I argued in my other article that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is speaking his point of view through the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). IF lied I copied and invented character to make him speak my point of view imitating Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s evil Sunnah: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Or maybe I am telling truth but I have no way to backup what I attributed to Deobandi Shaykh and my word is best you will get. 9.3 - Argument -: You Translated Part In Two Different Ways And It Shows Bias: You wrote: “You translated par in two ways. Par to mean on/onto. Par to mean by/to while translating Urdu of Hadith from Mazhar e Haq to English.” You said same par has been used but I have translated it to mean to and not over/on. Why? (i) I was not translating my own understanding but presenting understanding of Deobandi Shaykh Commander. In translation of Mazhar e Haq I was translating my own understanding. Just to humour you a little: (a) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation words are, jo too guzray meri qabr par -: “…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 …” In contrast words in Mazhar e Haq are, meri qabr par jao, here the meaning of crossing-over, travelling-over is not naturally part of sentence. Sentence, meri car par jao (i.e. go on my car) doesn’t denote crossing over. Or statement, meri dosti par jao (i.e. go by/par my friendship), in the context of Hadith language it would be, agar tum meri dosti par jao to (i.e. if you go by/on/par my friendship than). These statements do not denote same meaning of walking-over, travelling-over, pass-over as is the case in translation of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. (ii) I am not sure Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote, or intended to write what Deobandi Shaykh Commander deduced. Consequently I lay no blame upon him. 9.4 – Your Saying -: Your Biased Translation Shows Your Sectarian Mind-set: In context of translating par/on in two different ways you also wrote: “This shows your clear partisan type of dislike of Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed (ra). IF you were fair you would have translated both same.” I would disagree with your assumption questioning my neutrality. 9.5 – Your Saying -: You Said Shaykh Dehalvi Promoted Walking Over The Grave: (i) You wrote: “On basis of erroneous understanding and translation in English you said Shaykh Shah Shaheed promoted walking over the grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” I actually wrote: “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.” Deobandi Shaykh said Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi was indicating after the death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) companions could walk over his blessed grave. I did not say Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi promoted the idea. IF I did I would say Taqwiyat ul-Iman promotes walking over the grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) according to modern standard of Urdu because wording is double-ended. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “It was narrated from ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘If I were to walk on a live coal or a sword, or if I were to sew shows to my feet, that would be better for me than walking on the grave of a Muslim. And I see no difference between relieving myself in the midst of graves or in the middle of the marketplace.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1567, here.] How evil is a man who pays no respect due to the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) after he has passed. And puts evil ideas in minds of Muslims by down-playing severity of walking over grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to extant of wording it as being acceptable to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? 9.6 – According To Shaykh Commander Shaykh Dehalvi Promoted Walking Over Grave: Wording is of Taqwiyat ul-Iman 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 …” We say to Deobandi Shaykh Commander (PalTalk Login name) that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) compelled companion to deny prostration to blessed grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Going by your understanding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) remained silent regarding walking over his grave. And Hadith records regarding silence: “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, here.] Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) silence on something is absence of prohibition/permission in Quran and His silence is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not preventing an error with might, or with speech, here, and he does not have weakest Iman. Going by what you reasoned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited/prevented and spoke against prostration but he made no effort to prevent walking over his own grave after planting the idea. What is the silence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is indicating regarding walking over the grave IF Shaykh Dehalvi was insinuating what you deduced? Legalizing walking over the blessed grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by putting words in the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And We did not send before you any Messenger or Prophet except that when he spoke (or recited), Satan threw into it (some misunderstanding). But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” [Ref: Q22:52] 10.0 - Who And What Lead Me To Bring Erroneous Understanding To Light: (i) During my Deobandi days some Deobandi Mullah on PalTalk going by login name Commander would deliver lectures on highlighting merits of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. And in one particular lecture was delivered on this part of Taqwiat ul-Iman and translation of Hadith. (ii) Mullah said Shaykh Dehalvi has killed two birds with one arrow. He said that Shaykh Dehalvi sowed the seeds for refuting two Biddahs with this translation. He explained that Shaykh Dehalvi refuted Biddah of elevated graves and Shirk committed at the grave site of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Upon being questioned Deobandi Mullah elaborated that people committed Shirk by showing too much respect by standing at the grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with folded arms, head bowed, with submission and respect like in Salah. And Deobandi Mullah went on to say Shaykh Dehalvi’s translation indicates lowered grave: “… jo too guzray meri Qabr par …” And as act of curing a sickness (of Shirk) insinuated walking over grave to lower the God-hood level respect that was/is in the heart and minds of Muslims in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) Deobandi Mullah said the insinuation wasn’t actable, nor one should intend to act on it, nor Shaykh Dehalvi intended the people should act on it, because author only wrote that to cure Shirk and author himself knew his insinuation was unactionable because grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was inaccessible. Hence author’s intention in this translation was only a written-device to lower the God-hood level respect in the hearts and minds of Muslims. 10.1 - Refuting Deobandi’s Excessive Love, Respect, Submission, And Shirk Charge: It is recorded in Hadith: “It was narrated that Al-Bark said: "We went out with the Messenger of Allah for a funeral, and when we reached the grave the Lahd had not yet been prepared. He sat, and we sat around him, as if there were birds on our heads." [Ref: Nisa’ee, B21, H2003, here.] Following Hadith adds that it means sitting absolutely still: "Al-Bara Bin Azib said, “We went out with God’s messenger to the funeral of a man of the Ansar, but when we reached the grave the niche in the side had not yet been made, so the Prophet sat down facing the qibla and we sat down along with him.” Abu Dawud, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah transmitted it, Ibn Majah adding: Quietly. Literally as though the birds were over our heads. An explanation of the phrase is that when a bird alights on a camel’s head and begins to pick the ticks off it, the camel stands perfectly still so as not to frighten it away." [Ref: Mishkat ul-Masabih, B5, H185, here.] And to this I add that it also means the companions sat with heads bowed but absolutely still. I say heads bowed down because how rude would it be to stare Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the eyes non-stop. Try making non-stop eye contact with your Abba Ji, in English, I mean dad. How comfortable were you with staring at him like a creep and how comfortable was he? The companions did not stare at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor they were so rude. 10.2 - Countering Deobandi Fake Tawheed/Shirk And Charge Of Shirk: (i) IF standing in respect in court of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shirk because such standing in respect is only due to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Than sitting still as one stands/sits still excessively in Salah like birds are resting on our heads is also Shirk. Is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not deserving of such stillness? Than how many companions committed Shirk of Stillness? Here. I am done with Jahalat/ignorance of alleged Muslims claiming Tawheed. (ii) O Muslims Ibadah is combination of many components including stillness, respect, humility, fear, submission, and love. One or all of these with addition of any physical gesture does not warrant Shirk until belief in Ilahiyyah and intention of worship is affirmed for whom the action insinuating stillness, respect, humility, fear, submission, and love … are performed for. Standing in respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as described earlier is not action of Shirk and only a Kafir prevents Muslims from respecting him in ways which are allowed. Prohibited ways of showing respect established out of Sunnah are prostration and bowing. 11.0 - Your Saying -: You’re Following Your Uqabir’s Invented Narrative: You wrote: “Instead of being a true Muhaqiq/researcher, which you pretend to be, you chose to toe typical Barelwi narrative invented by your Uqabir ...” (i) In response I will say that like all before and all after me I too had to gain knowledge from those before me. No angels informs of Ghayb, and no Jinn has handed written record of matters, nor I say I was a witness to events. I had to sift through written record passed to you and me by your and my senior scholarship and than made a judgement based on those contents as well as my knowledge of Urdu language. I might seem to you that I am walking over path which Uqabir have paved. You won’t believe me but I have paved my own path and it happens to coincide with their stance. I will urge you to demonstrate to me where I have copied stole their narrative and made it mine. Only the destination is same but the path I walk on has been paved with guidance and help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not stealing arguments. (ii) Why is that IF I walked on path of Uqabir Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah you look down upon it? Yet you can do the same without guilt? I have no concrete evidence you’re walking on crooked path paved by your Uqabir but I am pretty certain you’re because you’ve suspended your knowledge of Urdu to blindly accept invalid Taweelat of your Deobandi Uqabir and contempories. 11.1 - Your Saying -: Barelwi Uqabir Translated Par To Mean On Instead Of By: You wrote: “… Barelwi narrative invented by your Uqabir and dishonestly translated par/by/to so you can target him as your Uqabir have done over a century.” (i) You’re saying Uqabir Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat translated par to mean on instead of by and I am walking on their path. Barelwi Uqabir Ulamah have not objected to translation of Hadith. All their antagonism is regarding Shaykh Dehalvi’s Dajjalic behaviour and wording attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon,…” IF you read the books of scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah they too have translated the Hadith as Ismail Dehalvi and Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) has indicated via his own translation that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation is blameless in al Kawkaba Ash-Shihabiyyah Fi Kufri’at Ab il-Wahhabiyyah: “Batao agar meri qabr par guzr ho to tum us ko Sajdah karo gay?” [Ref: Al-KawKabat ash-Shihabiyyah, Page 31, here.] 11.2 - Your Saying -: Dishonestly Translated Par To Target Shaykh Dehalvi: You wrote: “… Barelwi narrative invented by your Uqabir and dishonestly translated par/by/to so you can target him as your Uqabir have done over a century.” (i) Tell me what does, jo too guzray meray makan ki chaa’t/roof par to Sajdah karay Allah ko, what does that mean? It is to be translated as: That IF you walk on/over the roof of my house will you prostrate to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Now what about this: “…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 …” How will a common man coming out of Pakistani/Indian school education system will understand this? Who was the target audience of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? Likes of Imam Ghazali (rahimullah)? Or the Allamah’s and Fahamah’s of Dar ul-Uloom Deoband? Shaykh Dehalvi wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman as way of guiding ‘Muslim’-Mushrikeen to Tawheed. How will they read and understand the statement? Norm in scholarship and language is that words, phrases, sentences are understood according to common parlance (i.e. urf aam). And what lesson is common man learning reading above statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? There are not many ELITE level Allamah’s who will understand the above contrary to how Deobandi Shaykh Commander said. Only brainwashed, intellectually dwarf, intelligently non-existent will read and comprehend it completely innocent. Obviously Deobandi Shaykh I encountered had his reasons to deduce such meaning and I completely understand his basis but also know in Urdu Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s time this expression had no such meaning which Shaykh Commander deduced nearly 175 years later. 12.0 - Argument -: Mitti Mein Milna Is Natural For Deceased So Shaykh Said It: To defend Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi you said in the worse case scenario: “Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi only stated natural meaning of Hadith based on what naturally happens to deceased. It is strange you Barelwis charge him of insulting and degrading Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to this.” Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi had wrote: “…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 …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] Translation: “…Do not do so.” Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence …" (i) It is hard to comprehend you assumed this to be a valid argument in defence of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Have you become Majnoon in love of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi? How can the natural course of decomposition be associated with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when Ahadith make it clear decomposition is not true in connection with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other Prophets? Have you not read the Hadith: “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.] (ii) IF Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi attributed natural decomposition to your Abba Ji, and Amma Ji, and your children, and you than I wouldn’t have had objection because they like you are likely mar kar mitti mein milnay walay type people. Much like your Iman and heart has mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Say natural decomposition thing using Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s words about your own Deobandi Mullahs. Say it about Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh blind crow eating Gangohi, say it about Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, say Shaykh Manzoor Nomani mar kar mitti mein mil gaya, say Shaykh Hussain Madani is mar kar mitti mein milnay wala type. Say they were mar kar mitti mein milay, mar kar mitti mein mil-gay, mar kar mitti mein milnay walay type people. Translation: they died and mixed with dust (as dust), … they were type of people who will die and mix with dust (as dust). These Shayateen are subject of natural decomposition the Prophets and especially Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is did not, will not decay and decompose unlike your mother, father, Deobandi scholarship, and your ilk. 12.1 - Warning To One Attributing Lies To Prophet And One Defending Such Criminal: (i) Have you not read Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say: “Never say that those martyred in the cause of Allah are dead—in fact, they are alive! But you do not perceive it.” [Ref: Q2:154] Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was a martyr in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is recorded in Hadith Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: “Abu al-Ahwas reported: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “For me to swear by Allah nine times that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, had been killed is more beloved to me than swearing once that he was not, for Allah Almighty appointed him as Prophet and took him as a martyr.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Ibn Mas’ud, Hadith 3617, here.] How is it permissible to say about the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) words such as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, when he is a martyr in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about one who attributes a lie to him: "Narrated Ali: The Prophet said, 'Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H106, here.] “Narrated Anas: The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: "Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire." [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H108, here.] Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi lied about what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, lied about the interpretation of Hadith, and worst part is put the lie in the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and made him lie against his own words: “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.] Evil is man who invents lies and attributes them to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but worst type of evil man is one who makes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lie. Such people will be residents of deepest depth of hell and one who defends such a Shaytan will be with them. 13.0 - Argument -: Dictionaries Have Burial In Grave As A Meaning Of Mitti Mein Milna: You also said: “In dictionaries even ones employed by you have burial in grave as one of the meanings stated of mitti mein milna/milnay yet you deliberately translated it to present it in repugnant light. IF you had Husn al-Zann (good opinion) of Shah Shaheed …” (i) Mar kar mitti mein milna (mixing with dust after death) – one of its meaning as mentioned in quoted reference and noted by you as well is to bury dead in grave. I absolutely agree this is one of the meanings. Is the phrase; mein bi aik din mitti mein milnay wala hoon, right choice of words to say; one day I will die and will be buried in a grave especially when the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are: “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.] When Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi deliberately and knowingly did not make the right choice of words than why do you wish that I make the choice for Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi? I had no right to make good choices for a man who has chosen Kufr. (ii) Words mar kar mitti mein milna and its many variations are used to mean burial of dead in a grave for common people whose bodies naturally disintegrate decompose into dust. This is the origin and reason of usage of this phrase to mean burial in grave. (iii) Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi have died and consequently like all your Uqabir they have mitti mein mil gay (i.e. mixed with dust). Hence natural Taweel for using these words for them would be burial in grave and it would be right choice of words. (iv) Readers should note that in Urdu to describe someone’s burial in similar words to as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (i.e. one to mix into dust after death), is rude and disrespectful. 13.2 – Way To Get The Poetical Tum/You Smacked Out You: Deobandis in general and you in specific how many times in your life have you said Shaykh Thanvi has mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (i.e. died and mixed into dust)? Or have you said: My grand parents have mar kar mitti mein mil gay (i.e died and have mixed with dust)? Or have you said: Dad one day tum/you will die and mitti mein milnay walay ho (i.e. will mix into dust)? Your Abba Ji would smack the poetical tum out of you for using that language for him. IF you don’t believe me don’t try it on your Abba Ji but try it on your local Deobandi Masjid’s Mullah and see how he enlists help Muwahid non-Biddati goons to FIX your mental health and academic lack issues. 13.3 - Why It Is Wrong To Translate Mitti Mein Milnay To Mean Burial In Grave: (i) It is not correct to translate mitti mein milnay to mean burial in grave when these words are used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because condition required for this phrase to mean burial in grave is decomposition. Earth has been forbidden to decompose bodies of Prophets as evidenced by: “… 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.] Hence to translate; mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to mean; I will one day die and will be buried in a grave, will establish that decomposition is true for Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I am not of the Kafirs who wish and believe so and IF you’re not than do not translate it as you wanted me to do so. (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi should have said, one day I will die and will be buried in grave, yet he deliberately chose words which insinuate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is ordinary human being whose body is subject to decomposition. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] This Ayah is reference to unintended consequences of words which may lead disbelievers taking advantage and insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Man who deliberately writes degrading and insulting language for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not a believer even IF he claims so. 14.0 – Argument -: Noor ul-Lughat States Word Mein Is Used To Mean Sey: You wrote: “Had you actually bothered to look into the matter in an unbiased academic manner than you would have discovered that sometimes word mein (English equivalent IN) is used in meaning of sey (English equivalent FROM/WITH). As a result statement of Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi means: One day I will too die and come in contact with dust (i.e. mitti say milnay wala hoon). This meaning is what should be expected of scholar like Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed.” (i) I searched Noor ul-Lughat and located your reference, here, and I am pleased to say you have taught me something new with regards to usage of Mein being used in meaning of Sey. (ii) You’re purposing Taweel of an idiomatic expression, mitti mein milna/milnay, based on linguistic meaning of word Mein. (iii) I want to test your commitment to this vain and than I will address the deception you, your Uqabir, like Shaykh Manzoor Nomani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbangi, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, and others engaged in. (iv) How would you understand, Mein (in), in following sentence: Aik mota, lamba, particularly and aggressively tehra/bent danda Ismail Dehalvi mein gum ho gaya? (v) Did you read Mein (in and into) in meaning of Sey (from and with)? What was your natural unmolested understanding? Did it get lost from, or with, or in Ismail Dehalvi? Someone gasped and his jaw dropped reading that. 14.1 – An Explanation Of When Usage Of Mein Is In Meaning Of Sey: (i) This is - JUST FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT – IF idiomatic expressions can be subject to change on basis of linguistic meanings of words. Mein is in meaning of Sey where natural meaning of Mein (in/into) is not linguistically attainable. In Shaykh Dehalvi’s insulting remarks natural meaning of Mein is only solution because linguistically there is no impediment hindering natural meaning. To illustrate my point. Ali: Glass mein pani dal do. Apparent literal translation: Pour water in/into the glass. On basis of dictionary Mein can be used as alternative of Sey - how will you understand that? Pour the water from glass or water into the glass. Anyone with ounce of sense and Urdu knowledge will understand what is being asked is to pour water into glass. Why? Because there is no linguistically justifiable reason to assume FROM/WITH glass. In contrast Mein used in following is in meaning of Sey: Dewar mein is jacket ko laga do. Translation: Hang this jacket with wall. 14.2 - Idiomatic Expressions Not Subject To Linguistic Meaning Interpretation: (i) Your BAKWAS about idiomatic expression can be subjected to linguistic Taweels. This fraud was perpetuated by your dishonest and desperate Uqabir. (ii) Mitti mein milna is a idiomatic expression with fixed meanings associated with it. It is not subject to change due to linguistic meaning of words used in it. Mitti say milna (to contact with dust) is itself a idiomatic expression meaning death as well as meaning of being laid to rest in grave. IF Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi intended this than he would have used this expression. This expression is not in anyway offensive or insulting. On other hand expression employed by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is totally different ball game and is used derogatively. 14.3 – Subjecting Idioms Change Based On Other Meaning Of Words Is Unacceptable: (i) In light of what you said the statement, “Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab …“, should be read and understood as: mein bi aik din mar kar mitti say milnay wala hoon. What you have stated is changing the idiomatic expression based on linguistic meaning of words. One. Imagine someone saying: Shaykh Thanvi is a son of a bitch. When he is challenged he uses dictionary to argue bitch is any carnivorous female mammal. Hence I meant son of bitch as in son of female-fox. This is appropriate description of Shaykh Thanvi because I believe he was sly as a fox. No sane person would accept this Taweel because phrase and expression son of a bitch is common insult where Shaykh Thanvi is said akin to dog via referencing his mother to a bitch. Two. Take Arabic idiomatic expression, Walad ul-Haram. Imagine calling someone Walad ul-Haram (illegally born) and than resorting to other dictionary meanings of word Haram to change the fixed idiomatic meaning associated with it. No one will accept this Taweel because some phrases have fixed definitive meanings associated with them which do not change based on linguistic meanings of words used in them. Three. I will bring the temperature down with my examples. Idiom: Doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara. Idiomatically: Troubled individual finds solace in insignificants. Idiom: Ye chand garriyun ka mehman he. Idiomatically: He is alive few more moments. Question: Should we subject these and thousands of other idiomatic expressions in Urdu to other possible meanings of words used in idioms to alter and change what they mean? Is that correct course of action? (ii) Words mitti mein milna/milnay in sentence, “Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab …“ are idiomatic and have fixed meanings and are not subject to change based on other linguistic meanings of words used in it: “Idiom -: Mitti mein milna -: To mix/integrate with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicating from existence, joyless/tasteless, to waste.” [Ref: Jahangir ul-Lughat, Page 1348, by Wasi-Ullah Khokhar, here.] (iii) It is not that your Uqabir were unaware that idiomatic expressions have fixed meanings and these meanings are not subject to change due to linguistic meaning of words used in them. This is literally true in every language. They knew too well. They did everything in their arsenal including deception, lying, cheating to justify Kufr and make Kufr into Islam. These people were so low in their morals and high on academic deception that they said and did anything to defend Kufr. You break the cycle and support Islam. 14.4 - Same Old Insulting The Messenger Just New Monkeys And New Show: Munafiq ever making excuses to avoid consiquences after mocking, and is ready to downplay insults directed toward the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Age old excuse; we didn’t mean this; we were only joking and talking idly: : “If you ask them (about this), they declare: "We were only talking idly and joking. " Say: "Was it at Allah and His Ayat and His Messenger that you were mocking?" [Ref: Q9:65] Modern Deobandi excuse; we didn’t mean this; dictionary says word means this. On the ground level same old claptrap, i.e. making excuses after insulting the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), like of Munafiqeen insulted the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), than offered excuses, just new monkeys and another circus of insults. 15.0 - Your Saying – Sane Take Grammar, Meanings From Dictionaries, Experts, And Poets: You said: “Number of times in your article you wrote readers can ask the common Urdu speakers about the meaning of words and usage of these phrases. Why should the knowledge of ignorant/Jahil people be standard of judging truth? All sane people take knowledge of grammar and meaning of words from dictionaries written by experts, grammarians, and poets you want people to approach ignorant people on streets. The ignorant people are not standard but educated elite are and we judge by them.” (i) You would be absolutely right IF meanings we wanted to determine meaning of a word used in Urdu poetical verse, a Qur’anic word, or a word used in Hadith. In such cases we should use all sources you mentioned to understand a word and broadness of meaning contained in it. (ii) In the previous section I employed, Shaykh Thanvi is son of bitch. I say this is not abuse. You say it is abuse and insult. You say ask anyone speaking English and they will confirm it is abuse/swearing. And I copy paste word for word what you wrote: “You said listeners can ask common English speakers about the meaning of this phrase i.e. son of bitch. Why should the knowledge of common people be standard determine what phrases mean? All sane people take knowledge of grammar and meaning of words from dictionaries written by experts, grammarians, and poets you want people to approach ignorant people on streets. The ignorant people are not standard but educated elite are and we judge by them. Hence dictionary meaning of bitch is a carnivorous female and I meant fox. In English idiomatically person is said to be sly as a fox. Fox is associated with slyness I meant Shaykh Thanvi is son of a sly woman.” Am I justified in arguing meaning of words and idioms is to be determined by dictionary meaning of words used in idiomatic phrase and not commonly associated meaning with it? No! I am not. Why? I have insulted Shaykh Thanvi in common parlance and it requires no special knowledge to know it is an insult. And saying that RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is, aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, denotes clear obvious insult and disrespect. (iii) In context of, aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, you’re absolutely wrong. You want to use dictionary meaning of words to alter and support alteration of meaning of an idiomatic expressions and insults whose meanings are definitive and not subject to change based on other linguistic meanings of words used in idiomatic phrases. You also want to apply logic of poetic Tum/You to conventional conversation Tum to mean Aap. (iv) Previously I suggested readers to ask the common Urdu speakers because usage of phrase, aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is obviously insulting/disrespectful as son of bitch is in English. In this one I have directed you to approach your Abba Ji and Mullah of your Deobandi Masjid with TUM, TUM, TUM, and mar kar mitti mein -: milo gay, mil gay, mil-nay wala heh, milna heh, milay ga, mila heh. Go say Thanvi mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Translation X3: Died and mixed with dust. Go and say to your Abba: TUM bi mar kar mitti mein millo gay. Translation: Dad you will die and mix into dust. Preach and practice this on your Deobandi Uqabirs, and people you love and care about, and to people who can restore your mental and academic imbalance. You’re only getting away with insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because MUSLIMS are not aware what is in your books. (v) You’re not bothered about insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he is ours. When you use that language for your own Deobandi Mullahs and Amma, Abba, grandparents than you will learn how truth will give you bruises and how it hurts. 16 - Summary Of Arguments And Responses To Fundamental Statement: You said I have no evidence to my claim that Shaykh Dehalvi deliberately used offensive language and I proved my claim with evidence. You argued usage of Tum by Shaykh Dehalvi did not insinuate disrespect because in poetical verses written in praise of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) word TUM is used. To which I responded everyday speech is not poetry and rules of poetry do not govern everyday speech and suggested you use this poetical TUM for your Abba and Amma and Mullahs you associate. You also said Arabic Anta can be translated to mean TUM hence Shaykh Dehalvi translated it correctly. To which I responded and checked absence of culture by pointing out how will you translate Anta for your very own Abba Ji IF you had to translate Anta from Arabic to English? Tum or Aap? Abba’s bitch-slap bringer Tum or Abba’s bitch-slap avoider Aap? Further down the lines you said regarding, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, that one of dictionary I quoted has, mitti mein milna, means burial in grave. To which I responded mitti mein milna is correct and legitimate usage to mean burial in grave when mitti mein milna is used for Shuyukh -: Thanvi, Gangohi, Saharanpuri, Madani, Dehalvi, including your Abba and Amma Ji because that what happened to them and will happen. This is not correct usage for the Prophets, Sahabah, Awliyah, epecially Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because earth has no right to consume bodies of Prophets. You also argued word Mein used in, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, in meaning of sey. To which responded IF usage of mein is also in meaning of Sey than how will you understand: Aik mota lamba tehra danda Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi mein gum ho gaya? I explained that meaning of Mein is Sey in those places where Mein in its natural meaning is improbable and difficult to assume. It was also explained words in idiomatic expressions are not subjected to linguistic meanings words employed. Hence Mein cannot be changed to meaning of Sey in phrase, mitti mein milna. 17 - Shayateen Selectively Sharing Half Truth And Presenting It As Whole Truth: (i) Shayateen have told you words mitti mein milna means burial in grave according to dictionary meaning. They convineintly left out the fact that this meaning is so because this is what happens to common folk. For Prophets usage of this phrase is against the reality because earth has forbidden to consume bodies of Prophets. They told you TUM is OK when used for Prophets including Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because poetry has formal Tum (which is conveys meaning of Aap). Yet they conveniently left out the part that poetry conventions are not applied to everyday speech. Which is evidenced by – no one ever using Tum for their elders, parents, senior scholarship, teachers. They told you Mein is used in meaning of Sey but they left out when and where and why. They are using one side of coin to mislead and decieve you while not sharing with you other side which would expose their deception and academic massive compaign of disinformation. They told you half truth and employed to legitimize insults and disrespect directed toward the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Had they told you when, how, where, why Mein is in meaning of Sey then who would buy their narrative: Shaykh Dehalvi is innocent and a victim of Barelwi aggression. To protect senior scholarship like Shaykh Dehalvi - Deobandi scholars like Shaykh Nomani, Shaykh Dharbangi, Shaykh Saharanpuri, Shaykh Lakhnavi, Dajjal of Gakh-kar-Mandi Shaykh Sarfaraz K.S, and my contempory Shaykh Ghuman have used all tricks in their Dajjalic arsenal. While I am here it is best to point out the article you referrenced and I responded to, here, is nothing but demonstration of your Uqabir’s recycled deception. It is same old BAKWAS but a new monkey recycling and perpetuating evil that has come from your Uqabir. (ii) Don’t accept and determine THE truth based on account of a side of coin. Other side has been shown by Sunni scholarship. Make your judgment and choose a side wisely. I have chosen mine after comprehensively understanding the subject matter. Wama alayna ilal balagh ul-mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Nahin. Mard par wajib heh. Aurat apnay ayyam puray kar kay aur saf honay baad ghusul karay gi.

Ji. Samaj gaya thah.

Meray pass heh. Aap ko ghalat fehmi heh kay yeh print 1825 mein huwi heh. Asal kitab pehli baar 1825 mein print huwi thi. Hand wriiten note ko log ghalat mana letay hen. Yeh print 1970's ka heh. Ji wahan say hi yeh photo leeyeh thay. Meray pass ye donoon print thay magr arsa daraaz ho gaya harddrive kharab ho gaya thah. Meray pass taqwiyat ul imaan kay taqriban 25 mukhtalif print thay.

Jazakallah. Aaj say 50/75/100/125/150/200 saal purani print kitab. Yeh print ya in jaisay.

Deobandiyun nay upar walay print mein tahreef ki heh. Asal print mein thah: jo nah kabi maray na kabi kam howay Is upar wali ibarat par puranay print darkar hen aik ta kay qatti tor par sabat keeya ja sakay kay yeh kameenay khud nahin badaltay kitaben badal detay hen. Mar kar mitti mein milnay ka connection kam howay say heh ... Allah nah maray aur nah mitti mein milay yehni nah gal sarr kar kam howay ... ibarat kay sayaq o sabaq say sabat hota heh kay mitti mein milna mana dafnana mein nahin balkay galnay sarrnay say heh aur aisi soorat bad kam honay say heh. Lehaza Deobandiyun nay rawayati bey-hayahi aur apnay beyghayrat uqabir ki sunnat par amal keeya aur kitab mein tarmeem kar di.

http://www.marfat.com/BookDetailPage.aspx?bookId=165a4fb2-a9c8-4d1c-b4f1-e1fe409a028c Jis kitab ka zikr he aur refference heh us mein yeh nahin likha. Safa 81 ka refference heh aap nikaal kar dekh lenh bilkul wohi print sab kuch wohi magr safa 81 mein aisa kuch nahin likha.

I will find the rest n post links.

Jo kehta heh ilm ghayb ki categories momkin hi nahin ussay Tawheed ka pata nahin aur ghaliban abhi taq Musalman hi nahin huwa. Mein nay wazahat kar di heh pichli post mein. Ilm Ghayb ki daleelen bi pesh kar deenh. aur divisions ka farq keun aur kesay, kistera hota mukhtasar andaaz mein kar deeya. Tafseel parni ho toh English mein articles hen meray in classifications kay mozoo par.

Mutanahi and ghayb mutanahi. Mutanahi is limited and ghayr mutanahi is unlimited. Surah Ikhlas - As-Samad i.e. eternal, never-ending, everlasting. And laysaka mithli shai'in. Us jaisi kohi cheez nahin. Allah's Zaat/Essence and Sifaat/attributes are UNLIMITED. Allah ki zaat o sifaat limited nahin. Misaal lenh. Aik glass jis mein paani dalen to barr jahay. Keun? Glass ki capacity limited heh. Keun? Us ki zaat hi aisi heh is wasteh limited heh. Glass ki tara har makhlooq limited zaat kay lehaz say. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala unlimited heh zaat mein to jo sifaat us say mutasif hen sab unlimited hen. Aur makhlooq limited heh. Ilm Ghayb ki categories ki divisions ka suboot jis zaat ka Ilm Ghayb heh us ki zaat say milta heh. Makhlooq limited heh. Insaan ki zaat wa sifaat limited hen. RasoolAllah limited hen keun kay makhlooq hen. RasoolAllah ka ilm e Ghayb Allah nay deeya, yehni, Atahi. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala ki zaat/sifaat Zaati hen yehni kissi aur nay Allah ko aur us ki sifaat ko wujud/existance mein nahin laya. Yeh us ki apni hen. Aur Allah ka Ilm ghayb bi Allah ka apna/zaati heh yehni kissi aur nay Allah ko Ghayb ka ilm nahin deeya. Ilm Ghayb Allah nay aik hadd mein RasoolAllah ko deeya, yehni, limited, ya baaz/kuch. Allah makhlooq ko bey-hadd deh bi nahin sakta keun kay makhlooq mein bey-hadd ki qudrat hi nahin. Agar aap glass mein aik jag ka pani dalen toh glass itna hi pani leh ga jis ki us ki hadd heh. joh hadd say bahir heh wo glass say nikal jahay ga. insaan aur Nabi in mein bi bey-hadd ki qudrat nahin Allah aisa kaam hi nahin karta joh us ki shaan kay layk nah ho yehni bey-hadd ilm dalay us mein jis ki hadd ho aur bey-hadd par qudrat nah ho. Kulli, every/all, yeh technically Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ki zaat sifaat wasteh istimal nahin hota agar ho to phir yeh unlimited ki taraf lot-ta heh. Kulli aam tor par RasoolAllah kay ilm ghayb wasteh istimal hota heh jab batana yeh maqsood ho keh, RasoolAllah ko tamam al-lawl al-mafooz ka ilm ghayb Allah nay deeya. Agar kulli ko ulimited/ghayr-mutanahi ki taraf lotaya jahay to aisa ilm ghayb rasoolAllah wasteh manna saree shirk/kufr heh. RasoolAllah ka jism shareef rooh/soul mubarak Allah nay bana-hay aur un ka waqia hona aisay aaik waqt mein huwa jis say pehlay nah thay is ko HADIS kehtay hen. Hadis bil muqabil Qadeem heh. Qadeem Allah heh keun kay Qadeem istilah mein ussay kehtay hen jis ki kabi-bi-shoruwaat nah huwi ho aur hamesha say mojood ho. Is lehaz say RasoolAllah ka ilm ghayb Hadis heh keun kay zaat bi hadis aur joh sifaat is say mutasif hen woh bi hadis, aur ilm sift heh. Allah ta'ala ka ilm ghayb Qadeem heh, keun keh zaat qadeem, sifaat qadeem, aur joh in say mutasif woh bi qadeem. Al-Hasil Ghayb ki divisions ka subut, jis zaat ka ilm ghayb heh, us ko analyze kar kay nikala ja sakta heh. Yeh feham Tawheed aqli heh aur in divisions ko qubul keeyeh baghayr kohi Musalman nahin. Yeh Tawheed ka fundamental knowledge heh aap ko seekhna cha-yeh. Mein aap ko apna number message kar doon ga jab kohi zeroorat ho ya kohi masla idhar pesh ho toh post kar kay mujjay whatsApp par message kar deeya keren mein check kar kay jawab likh deeya karoon ga. Abhi mein aik aur masla par busy hoon. itna waqt nahin milta kay website par aya karoon.

Apply this definition on, 72:26/27, and tell me if above definition is correct, He the Alim ul-Ghayb gives His Ghayb to none except a chosen Messenger. Tell me if the definition is correct. Allah says I give Ghayb. Deobandi says what Allah gives is not Ghayb. Wama huwa alal ghaybi bi-Dhaneen. Surah Taqweer He is not miser/stingy with Ghayb. IF zameer of HUWA/He/he returns to Allah, than Allah gives freely without being stingy. Who does He give Ghayb ... none except a chosen Messenger. IF zameer huwa returns to the Messenger than he gives ghayb freely to his Ummatis without holding it back. Question is how can he give Ghayb when he doesnt know it himself. I say both are correct and in agreement with jawami al-kalim nature of Quran. One who denies Ilm ghayb of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is KAFIR. One who calls this belief Shirk is also Kafir. One who calls this belief heretical/misguidance is also a Kafir. One who promotes it, defends it, and supports it is also Kafir.

Imam did not say ilm mutlaq tafseeli belongs to Allah . Ilm mutlaq tafseeli is what is encapsuled in ayah, Allah Knows every thing, ie shai/thing. He than goes mention what is excluded from shai n that is mumkinaat, imkanaat, muhallaat, n knowledge of essence n names of Allah. He was excluding lamuntahi/ghayr-mahdood from ilmi mutlaq tafseeli but Deobandi is saying he included it in. I will write comprehensive reply but i have pointed out the error. To say Allah's knowledge is of and limited to ilm mutlaq tafseeli (limited to general details) is major Kufr n Shirk. This is creations knowledge. Shirk because Allah has been made equal to creation in His knowledge. Normally Shirk is to make creation equal to Allah's knowledge.

I will write response to Deobandi article in due time. He is either distorting or has misunderstood. Misunderstood is possibility n greater chance of it as i have misunderstood it initially while i was reading it. It is a technical book n imam doesn't always clearly doesn't specify his objective. Scholars will find it easy to understand but layman will not. For now all u need to know is that imam wrote anyone who ascribes Allah's unlimited knowledge to a creation he commits kufr/shirk akbar. Allah's names n essence is unlimited n no one not even the prophets including our prophet or Awliyah or Saliheen can know Him as He is they only know bits n their knowledge increases of Tawheed as they progress their stations but they will never come to know Unlimited Him.

I had misunderstood what Imam wrote. I need to clarify.

Ok. I finally figured why deobandi is saying Imam Ahmad Raza rahimullah established Allah's knowledge for prophet of Allah.