MuhammedAli

Introduction: During a discussion on subject of Hadhir Nazir and in explanation of verse, O Prophet truly We have sent you as a Shahid/Witness, Wahhabi argued this verse is connected with verses in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is said to be witness over his Ummah in defence of Prophets. And it has no connection with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessing deeds of his own Ummah [or mankind ing eneral]. He attempted to de-link the verse from Ummah because Islamic teaching is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will witness the deeds of mankind, including his Ummah, and will testify in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this in essence establishes the belief which has come to be known as Hadhir Nazir. Therefore focus of this article would to establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) actually witnesses actions and will testify as such. 0.0 - Jawami al-Kalim Nature Of Quran And Prophetic Utterances: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he has been given Jawami Al-Kalim and he explained; few sentences expressing vast meanings and indeed this is nature of Quran: “Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Messenger saying: "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim, and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand." Muhammad said: Jawami al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet.” [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141] In light of this it should be noted that it is possible to interpret verses of Quran in many ways, and all interpretations can be valid if they have sustantiating evidence, and do not contradict a apparent meaning of verse which cannot not be reconciled with the interpretation. 1.0 - Prophet Of Allah Sent As A Witness To Mankind: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] Being sent as a Warner entails the one being sent as Warner warns and if he gives no warning of impending harm, loss of property, or life, or anything else then he isn’t a warner. And same applies to bearer of glad tidings. Muslims would agree that he warned mankind of punishment of hell-fire and gave glad tidings of paradise to mankind if they believe and do righteous deeds. In this context of being warner/giver of glad tidings to mankind Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated he has sent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as a witness and therefore natural meaning would be he has been sent as a witness to see/hear. And he is sent to as warner and giver of glad-tidings to mankind therefore his station of Shahid/Shaheed is for entire mankind just as his warnings and glad-tidings and entire Islam is for mankind. Being been sent as a witness to a convention the natural meaning is to observe the events of convetion and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to mankind as a witness to witness the deeds of mankind. Hadith establishes direct witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib al-Laduniyyah bil-Manahi al-Muhammadiyyah, Vol7, Page204] 1.1 - Interpretation Of 33:45 By Imam Suyuti And Shaykh Ibn Kathir: Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (rahimullah) had following to say on the verse: “O Prophet! Indeed We have sent you as a witness against those to whom you have were sent and as a bearer of good tidings for those who affirm your sincerity of Paradise and as a warner for those who deny you of the punishment of the Fire.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 33:45, here.] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a Nabi/Rasool to entire Jinn and mankind. In this context Imam (rahimullah) has stated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a witness against entire mankind and this agrees with what Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) stated. Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) commenting in his Tafsir indicates on the day of judgment Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be a witness against mankind for their deeds: “’… as witness …’ means; a witness to Allah's Oneness, for there is no God except He, and a witness against mankind for their deeds on the Day of Resurrection. [Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] said: “… and We bring you as a witness against these people …” (4:41) This is like the Ayah: “… that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.” (2:143) [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 33:45] 2.0 - Allah And Messenger Of Allah Observe Deeds Of Ummah: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that He and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will see the deeds of hypocrties: “They will make excuses to you when you have returned to them. Say, "Make no excuse - never will we believe you. Allah has already informed us of your news. And Allah will observe your deeds, and His Messenger; then you will be taken back to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:94] In light of historical context the verse states when the Muslims return from battle the hypocrites will present excuses to you in an attempt to justify why they have not taken part in battle. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been instructed to say to them that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has already informed him about reality of Iman and they are to be told do not make excuses about your absence from Jihad. As stated Quran is short but comprehensive in meaning. It can also be interpreted to mean that; O hypocrites of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) time and of every era you can do your deeds Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will observe your deeds then you will be brought back in presence of your Lord and He will inform you of all that you did. Another evidence which explains why Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) observes the deeds: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] For those who are reluctant to accept second interpretation please note it is attested by commentators in a similar verse to 9:94 where Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And say: "Do deeds for Allah will see your deeds, and His Messenger, and the believers. And you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:105] Imam Jalal ad-Din al-Suyuti (rahimullah ta’ala) has stated about this verse: “And say to them [the hypocrites], or to people in general: ‘Act as you will for God will surely see your actions and so will His Messenger and the believers and you will be returned through resurrection to the Knower of the unseen and the visible that is to God and He will tell you what you used to do and so requite you for it.’” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 9:105, here.] This establishes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will see the actions of hypcrites and Mulsims. Note the verse isn’t restricted to context of an era. It is open to all ages and instruction in it is applicable to all Muslims therefore the detail of verse applies to all Muslims including seeing of actions of by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and believers. 2.1 - Good And Bad Deeds Of Ummah Presented To Prophet: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and we talk to you, and my demise is also a great good for you (because) your deeds will be presented to me. If they are good, I will praise Allah, and if they are bad, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you.” [Ref:Narrated by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, through Harith, in al-Matalib ul-aliyah, 4: 22-3 #3853] “Bakr bin ‘Abdullah also reported that the Holy said: My life is a great good for you in whom you talk (to me) and you are responded. And when I will die my demise will be a great good for you. Your deeds will be presented to me, if I see goodness, I will praise Allah, and if I see wrongs, I will ask Allah’s forgiveness for you." [Ref: Ibn Sa‘d related in at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra 2:194, Ali bin Abu Bakr Haythami related in Majma al-Zawa’id 9:24] This establishes he is aware of the deeds and affairs of his Ummah after he passed away. 3.0 - Companion Wants To Make Prophet A Witness: It is recorded in Hadith that a companion wanted to gift a property to his son and he wanted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be witness the good deed take place: “Narrated An-Nu`man bin Bashir: My mother asked my father to present me a gift from his property; and he gave it to me after some hesitation. My mother said that she would not be satisfied unless the Prophet was made a witness to it. I being a young boy, my father held me by the hand and took me to the Prophet . He said to the Prophet, "His mother, bint Rawaha, requested me to give this boy a gift." The Prophet said: "Do you have other sons besides him?" He said: "Yes." The Prophet said: "Do not make me a witness for injustice." Narrated Ash-Shu`bi that the Prophet said: "I will not become a witness for injustice." [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H818] Companion inviting Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be witness over his good deed establishes the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) held to belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witness over them in sense of witnessing their deeds. Following article is related to topic and Hadith, here. 3.1 - Companion Dedicates A Well And Makes Prophet A Witness: It is recorded in Hadith a companion gave a garden in charity on behalf of his deceased mother and made Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witness to it: “It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that a man said: "O Messenger of Allah, my mother died; will it benefit her if I give in charity on her behalf?" He said: "Yes." He said: "I have a garden and I ask you to bear witness that I am giving it in charity on her behalf." [Ref: Nisai, B30, H3685] Companion specificly making Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a witness of his good deed indicates companion has a particular belief due to which he did so. It is common knowledge Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed angels to write good/bad deeds of believers and nothing goes miss from their accounts. In this light it cannot be said companion feared Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would not be aware or the angels would not record the deed. The only plausible and logical reason for making Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witness the good deed would be; he believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness of his deeds in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his witnessing carrys special weight in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hadith in Sahih of Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) gives greater detail about identity of companion and incident: “Narrated Ibn Abbas: That the mother of Sa`d bin Ubada the brother of Bani Saida died in Sa`d's absence, so he came to the Prophet saying: "O Allah's Messenger! My mother died in my absence, will it benefit her if I give in charity on her behalf?" The Prophet said: "Yes." Sa`d said: "I take you as my witness that I give my garden Al-Makhraf in charity on her behalf." [Ref: Bukhari, B51, H24] 3.2 - Prophet Said To Abu Talib Recite Shahadah And I Will Testify On Your Behalf: Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said to his uncle Abu Talib to recite Shahadah but he refused: “Narrated Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him: "The Messenger of Allah said to his uncle: 'Say: None has the right to be worshiped except Allah. And I may bear witness with that, on your behalf, on the Day of Judgement.' So he said: 'If it weren't that the Quraish would insult me (by saying): ‘He only said it out of fright then I would delighted your eyes.' Then Allah the Mighty and Sublime revealed: Verily, you guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3188] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he will bear witness in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if Abu Talib recites the Shahadah. In another Hadith there is additional detail mentioned: "Narrated Sa`id bin Al-Musaiyab from his father: When the time of the death of Abu Talib approached, Allah's Messenger went to him and found Abu Jahl bin Hisham and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin Al-Mughira by his side. Allah's Messenger said to Abu Talib: "O uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. A sentence with which I shall be a witness for you before Allah. Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said: "O Abu Talib! Are you going to denounce the religion of Abdul Muttalib?" Allah's Messenger kept on inviting Abu Talib to say it while they kept on repeating their statement till Abu Talib said as his last statement that he was on the religion of Abdul Muttalib and refused to say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' Then Allah's Messenger said: "I will keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so." So Allah revealed (the verse) concerning him." [Ref: Bukhari, B23, H442] Both these Ahadith prove Islamic belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a witness to observe/hear deeds and willl testify on behalf of Muslims in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Conclusion: Section 1.0 explains the verse in light of other verses to imply that it is inclusive of entire mankind. And 1.1 quotes interpretation of verse 33:45 of Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (rahimullah) and of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah). They have indicated that RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) on the day of judgment will testify on deeds of mankind which is inclusive of his own Ummah. Section 2.0 to 2.1 establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) observes the good and bad deeds of his Ummah. Section 3.0 to 3.2 establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was made to bear witness to some of good deeds on the grounds that he would testify in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). There are number of conclusions that can be drawn from this information.This first and connected to main objective of article is; verse 33:45 and verses like it are about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent as a witness to observe deeds of mankind so on the day of judgment he can bear truthfully bear witness by meeting criteria of a witness - hearing and seeing of deeds. Ofcourse he did witness everything during his life time as the Hadith established in 1.0. We Muslims also believe after departure of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from earthly life Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) conferred upon him supernatural ability to witness deeds of Jinn and mankind without a intermediatry that are to happen till the day of judgment. In additions to this angels present records of deeds to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and this is another way he is made aware of happenings of events but not the only way. Over-all witnessing of deeds of Ummah and mankind in general has been established. Wama alayna ilal balalghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Shaykh Madani defends his senior Shaykh Ashrat Ali Thanvi saying; as per rules of Tashbeeh it can only be in a single quality. And he argues Tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman is in category of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz [Ilm al-Ghayb]. He believes if itna was used instead of aisa then then statement of Hifz ul-Iman would be objectionable but aisa of Tashbeeh is used. Also he stated quantity of prophetic knowledge is not being discussed in Hifz ul-Iman. All of these excuses are being exmployed to vindicate Shaykh Thanvi from blame of Kufr and insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This article will attempt to look into matter if Shaykh Madani was successful in his effort or has failed miserably. “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 0.1 - Shaykh Madani’s Deception Under Microscope: Shaykh Madani has stated about Hifz ul-Iman’s statement: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa but did not state word itna. If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] He negates usage of itna because he understands if it was itna instead of aisa then statement would establish eqaulity in quantity of prophetic knowledge and the mentioned creations. In another place Shaykh Madani writes: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where Tashbeeh is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] Shaykh Madani; Aisa is for Tashbeeh and goes on to say Tashbeeh is not in every aspect and in this Shaykh Thanvi agrees with Shaykh Madani. And then Shaykh states therefore the Tashbeeh is in Nafs (i.e. category) of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz. And in another place Shaykh writes:“Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz and discussion is about of it (baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that Tashbeeh is in the Nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of Baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] 0.2 - Objective Of Shaykh Madani Plain And Simple: There are two objectives of Shaykh Madani: i) He is attempting to argue; in principle Tashbeeh is in a single trait and not in many traits therefore the Tashbeeh is only in category of Baaz. In other words aisa returns to category of Baaz and not to Baaz Ilm of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And he is attempting to refute quantity argument. If his argument is believed then Tashbeeh would mean; type and quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is possessed by mentioned creations. ii) Aisa is for Tashbeeh and Itna is for quantity; and due to gramatical structuring if it was itna in statement then Tashbeeh of Baazi’at would return to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Thanvi would be saying; prophetic quantity of knowledge is possessed by the mentioned creations. So Shaykh Madani is attempting to refute this by denying Aisa not meaning Itna. Unfortunately for Shaykh Aisa is used in meaning of Itna and in sense of Tashbeeh. 1.0 - Tashbeeh In Two Aspects - Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement Is Exception To Rule: If we grant Shaykh Madani the argument; Tashbeeh is in single aspect and not in many traits. He states that Tashbeeh is in category of Mutliq Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. Nafs of Baazi’at) and not in quantity of Mutliq Ilm al-Ghayb. Islamic response to Shaykh Madani would be; if the controversial statement of Hifz ul-Iman is read apparently, without diving into depth, and if statement is understood in parts and not as whole, then Tashbeeh is in two places. The first and apparent [and the easily acessible] Tashbeeh is between category of Baaz of mentioned creations and of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In second and the actual Tashbeeh is between Baaz quantity of knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and quantity of Ghayb knowledge of mentioned creations. It is correct that Tashbeeh is always in a single aspect and it is between where ‘the compared’ and ‘the compared to’ have a common ‘trait’. Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Madani should have known and are educated better because statement of Hifz ul-Iman even if Tashbeeh is in Nafs of Baazi’at (i.e. category of Baaz) even then due to negation of Takhsees (i.e. speciality, or uniqueness) of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in Nafs of Baazi’at the natural meaning would be Tashbeeh in equal quantity between ‘the compared’ and ‘compared to’ because Takhsees could only be negated by Shaykh Thanvi if assumed prophetic knowledge was equal in Nafs of Baazi’at to creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi or less then knowledge Ghayb knowledge of mentioned creations. If he believed prophetic knowledge was definitive as well as greater in quantity then he could not have negated Takhsees. His negation of Takhsees establishes there is another Tashbeeh but less apparent and it is of equality in quantity in category of Baaz not just only in category of Baaz. Even though the second Tashbeeh has been mentioned as second in reality there is just one Tashbeeh because Tashbeeh of equal quantity is part of same statement and because quantity however great/little it maybe it is still in category of Baaz. Imagine it as many parts coming togather to make a car. Despite the large quantity of parts they all assemble to make one car. In similar fashion Shaykh Thanvi’s statement has two parts and both come togahter to establish actual meaning of his statement; Tashbeeh of equal qauntity in category of Baaz. 1.1 – Equality Due To Exageration Or Equality Due To Detracting: It is established Shaykh Thanvi’s statement establishes equality between prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. This high lights another problem; which the minions of Iblees will have to answer to. Incase Shaykh Thanvi believes prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is of countless matters of Ghayb (note; countless in human counting but still limited). Then the established equality will be in; Shaykh elevated the lower creations, with Zanni knowledge, of few matters of Ghayb, to rank of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb, which is Qatti, and consists of all that is in perserved Tablet and greater. In this case Shaykh Thanvi would be guilty of bolstering knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds via exagerating/mubalgha to negate merit of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. And that does not mean anything good. Imagine in order to refute merit of Shaykh Thanvi a certain Dharbangi bolster the standing of Iblees and says; there is nothing special about Shaykh Thanvi’s piety even Iblees is pious like him. Zanni cannot be equal of Qatti and one with knowledge of perseved tablet cannot be equal to one who knows few matters of Zanni Ghayb knowledge. Just like a Muslim who only says; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah; is better then Iblees even if other righteous actions are not considered. Other alternative is that Shaykh believes; prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is insignificant and knowledge of mentioned creations is insignificant also hence there is equality. And this is no better alternative for the reasons of quantity and quality mentioned before i.e. Qatti and of perserved tablet. 1.2 - Logic Behind Islamic Understanding Of Tashbeeh In Hifz ul-Iman: Islamic response to Shaykh Madani would be; Aisa can be returned for Tashbeeh to; i) Baaz Ghayb, ii) knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the first scenario Aisa is returned to Baaz Ghayb for Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if Baaz2 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Question is; whose knowledge is this limited (i.e. Baaz) Ghayb referring to? And Shaykh knows and acknowledges it referrs to limited knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of Zayd Amr; infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. Incase the minions of Iblees incarnate negate this fact then please see the following section 2.0. And we already know Takhsees of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was negated in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. And negation of Ilm al-Ghayb’s merit for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can only be, in context of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement, if Shaykh Thanvi also; compared (or; made Tashbeeh of) Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb with Zayd Amr; infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds and came to conclusion his knowledge was equale in quantity to mentioned creations. Therefore there are multiple Tashbeehs in statement of Shaykh Thanvi from this perspective. In the second scenario Aisa is returned to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to be specific to his Ghayb knowledge for Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] There are two possibilities: A) If Tashbeeh of Aisa returns to Ilm Ghayb of creations via Hadhoor then Tashbeeh is between prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. B) If Tashbeeh of Aisa returns to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb via Hadhoor then Tashbeeh is between prophetic Baaz knowledge of Ghayb and between Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In case of A one has to imply Baaz to fully understand the statement and in case of B one has to imply; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. And in both cases the Takhsees of Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated. And negation of it can only be if there is Tashbeeh between: 1) Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. 2) And if there is Tashbeeh in equal quantity of Ilm al-Ghayb. There are multiple Tashbeehs in statement of Shaykh Thanvi which no sane person can deny. And all have to be accounted to understand the statement properly. 2.0 - Response To: Itna Would Be Problematic But It Is Aisa: If the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is read and understood as whole; even then like the previous section; Tashbeeh is in quantity of Baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and between quantity of mentioned creations. Readers should note that Shaykh Madani is actually attempting to refute the very point that Tashbeeh isn’t in quantity of Baaz Ghayb. The reason Shaykh Madani negates this understanding is; he argues statement is not in meaning of Itna; if it was then it would be problematic because there would be equality in quantity: “… that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa but did not state word itna. If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things…” Due to Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ghayb; Aisa cannot only be in comparative meaning of likeness (i.e. misl) but it is also in comparative meaning of Itna (i.e. this-much): “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please note; usage of Aisa in context of quantity being compared by default establishes Aisa is in meaning of Itna. Continuing; even though Shaykh Madani negates the statement is in meaning of Itna and is-Qadr (i.e. this-much) yet other major Deobandi scholars have understood it to be in meaning of Itna/Is-qadr. 2.1 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna: Madani VS Naumani And Darbhangi: Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan which is a follow-up five page book from Hifz ul-Iman hinted toward aisa being used in meaning of itna but without implying Tashbeeh: “From this discussion we learn that in the mentioned statement knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not been compared/equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Umru and others. And the word aisa is not used every time for Tashbeeh. According people who speak the lanugage they use it popularly in; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is aisa powerful. So in this is there intention to compare the power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with another? No! Not at all …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Following Shaykh Thanvi’s lead; Shaykh Naumani is reported to have said in debate that aisa is in meaning of itna: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore not in tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] Shaykh Naumani in following example presented two examples in which aisa is used to mean itna: “You have asked me to provide evidence of aisa being used in meaning of itna linguistically and in popular culture. Indeed this demand of yours is legitimate. Listen! Ameer Minahai (the blessed) in his; Ameer ul-Lughaat, Volume two, page 302 has presented a perfect/detailed research on usage of word aisa. And has mentioned few meanings. From all of them one meaning which I have mentioned. In this situation following is his statement: ‘AISA; (means) itna, is-qadr. SENTENCE: Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.[1] POETICAL VERSE: Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf.[2] Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.’ (Barq). There you go now I have established from linguistics that aisa is used without Tashbeeh in meaning of itna.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77/78, here.] Also Shaykh Darbhangi says aisa has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr:“It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] In 1.0 it was established through sound reasoning aisa is in meaning of itna. Readers should note; Shaykh Naumani gave referrences and examples in which aisa has been used to mean itna. 2.2 - Shaykh Madani Negates Itna And The Reason Behind It: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) alleged that Shaykh Thanvi equaled prophetic knowledge to creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here.] Shaykh Madani mentioned this on page 277 of his book. And charge of Kufr issued by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat was on basis of equality in quantity of knowledge. In Shihab as-Saqib Shaykh Madani is attempting to refute this charge of that Shaykh Thanvi established equality in quantity in Ghuyub of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of creations mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement. And in this context Shaykh Madani negates Itna in following statement: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much). If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] This leads to conclusion; according to Shaykh Madani Itna’s usage would have established equality in quantity of knowledge [and he believes its absence negates charge of equality in quantity]. Now there isn’t explicit usage of Itna in Hifz ul-Iman but there is equality in quantity of knowledge, see 1.0, underlined. And therefore grametical usage of aisa is in meaning of Itna. Note even though Itna wasn’t used but the meaning which Shaykh Madani assumed for Itna (i.e. equality in quantity) is present in Aisa hence Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel of Aisa meaning Itna is valid. And with Itna established via Aisa then Fatwah of Kufr issued by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, which Shaykh Madani attempted to refute by negating equality in quantity of knowledge remains valid. 3.0 - Response To Shaykh’s Claim Tashbeeh Is In Category Of Limited Ghayb: Shaykh Madani claims; Tashbeeh was in category of Baaz and not in quantity of prophetic knowledge. When ever there is Tashbeeh; the Tashbeeh is between two things, living or dead, and a quality, or trait, or characteristic which both share. If it is said; Ali is powerful like a lion. The basic premise is; Ali is like lion. And the likeness is in being powerful. If one says: No! No! The Tashbeeh is not between Ali and lion because the word like in the sentence returns to powerfullness and not to Ali. Any sane person would realize the Tashbeeh by nature is between two beings it cannot be between a trait and a person. The fundamental of Tashbeeh are two beings who share a trait. If a being is missing then there is no Tashbeeh. If it is said; Ali is powerful like. And no other being is mentioned then sentence is wrong. And if another is mentioned but claims phrase; Ali is powerful like lion doesn’t mean; Ali is like a lion in power. Then be confident in declaring the distorter as a minor Dajjal. Similarly in context of Hifz ul-Iman’s Tashbeeh; there is mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and mentions of creations, and a common quality between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and creations, and that quality is Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. Therefore the basic premise is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is like; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals quadrupeds. And this likeness is in that they share quality of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. And if one only says: No! No! The Tashbeeh is in quality of Baazi’at and not with RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then he is actually negating Tashbeeh because he negates the fundamental requrement of Tashbeeh – i.e. sharing of trait between two beings. 3.1A - Incident Of Mother Of Believers And She Took Tashbeeh And Equality: It is recorded in Ahadith:“Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah!” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493] “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not …” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486] The fact that Umm ul-Momineen Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) took offense when women were mentioned with amongst the list of animals (i.e. dog, donkey). Note even though the speaker did not compare women with the animals and nor did the companion say; women are unclean like the mentioned animals yet she implied Tashbeeh/comparision and took offense because she felt women were being considered impure like the mentioned animals. 3.1B – Hifz ul-Iman Statement Is Offensive Irrespective: Comparatively to Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) incident, Shaykh Madani claims, Tashbeeh was in category of Baaz and not in Baaz quantity of prophetic knowledge. In other words Shaykh Madani acknowledges there is obvious Tashbeeh in category of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb. Statement of Hifz ul-Iman reads as follows: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa Baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) case; words did not denote Tashbeeh in impurity of animals but women were only mentioned along side dog and donkey and she implied Tashbeeh of impurity and equality. Shaykh Thanvi explicitly uses words which denote Tashbeeh. And Tashbeeh, in words of Shaykh Madani, in category of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb with mentioned animals. When obvious facts are that Tashbeeh is category of Baaz then wouldn’t it just be wise to acknowledge that Tashbeeh in category of Baaz is insulting and disrespectful even if the Tashbeeh is not in quantity of Baaz! Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) was very finely tuned to understand insult and disrespect as the example demonstrates. Just by the fact that Shaykh Thanvi mentioned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the list of, Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds, would have been enough for her to take note of insult/disrespect. To even think she would have accepted prophetic knowledge being compared even in Nafs of Baazi’at with the mentioned is unthinkable. Conclusion: Shaykh Madani referrenced principle of Tashbeeh saying; Tashbeeh is in single trait, quality, attribute and not more then one. And he goes on to cite number of examples of on page two-hundered-eighty-two. And this principle is indeed true but Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is contructed in such a fashion where it is impossible to avoid Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. And it is Tashbeeh of equal quantity between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Shaykh Madani understanding is; if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would have been justifiably criticised but aisa has been used. According to Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel, for which he has a valid basis, aisa has been used in meaning of itna but his saying itna is without Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is just an attempt at pious deception. And it was established that how and why aisa means itna, and its usage would be with Tashbeeh. So Shaykh Madani’s pack of lies was undermined by negation of Takhsees, by Shaykh Naumani’s demonstration how aisa is employed, and by his own assumption that itna would establish equality in quantity. Therefore the Kufr in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and Fatwah of Kufr on Shaykh Thanvi remains without a valid Taweel. And one who defends Kufr of a Kafir is also Kafir. And Shaykh Madani is like Shaykh Thanvi. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] It can mean: Struck him so-much that nearly killed him. And means: Struck in like-this that nearly killed him. The context determines how the phrase is to be understood. In the context of example; it is employed in meaning of itna/is-qadr hence the first meaning is intended. - [2] It roughly means: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so-much delicate and blemish-less.’ Better rendering of it in English would be: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so delicate and belmeish-less.’ Yet the problem for Shaykh Naumani is; in the poetical verse of looser aka Barq; even if aisa is taken to mean itna; the goal of refuting Tashbeeh cannot be achieved because Barq is comparing blemishless-ness and delicateness of figure with female figure. This proves even itna can be used for Tashbeeh. So if statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of itna even then Tashbeeh contextually cannot be negated.

Introduction: This article will focus on Deobandi, specificly Shaykh Naumani’s argument; statement of Hifz ul-Iman uses aisa and it is without jaisa therefore it is not for sake of Tashbeeh/comparision. This article present translation of debate between Allama Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Naumani. It was published as, Nusrat Khuda-dad: Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, and it was compiled by Mawlana Muhammad Hamid Shafi. Please note this is Islamic perspective of account and Deobandi account of debate will be also translated. Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement Subject Of Debate: Q:“A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Ilm al-Ghayb is bil-Zaat (i.e. of Self), in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. Knower Of Ghayb). And ba-wasta (i.e. bil-Ardh, through means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] A: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Allamah Sardar Ahmad’s And Shaykh Naumani’s Positions: Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and anyone with ability to read Urdu, and not brainwashed in Deobandism, believe statement of Shaykh Thanvi is written comparatively because aisa (i.e. like-this) in context of the statement is of Tashbeeh/comparision. And knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with detestable creations mentioned in the statement. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of insulting of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is of belief that aisa in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is not of Tashbeeh because Shaykh Thanvi did not use jaisa (i.e. like-it, like of, like) but it is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much). Also Shaykh Naumani believes IF statement of Hifz ul-Iman was as Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) believes it is then he too would consider it insulting and Kufr. Allamah Ahmad’s Speech With Aisa And Jaisa: Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman has divided Ilm al-Ghayb into two categories. Qull Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. all hidden knowledge): From which not one thing is excluded (it is Qull Ilm al-Ghayb). And second is Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. some hidden knowledge); however little it maybe (it would still be Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb). Then for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he stated Qull Ilm al-Ghayb is intellectually and evidentially wrong. Now (Qull Ilm al-Ghayb) is no longer an option for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) except Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb; regarding which he said clearly that: ‘… then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e. scorpions, owls, donkey, etc) …’[01] Therefore the meaning of the statement is clearly evident that jaisa ilm (i.e. knowledge like-of) honorable Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses; aisa (knowledge) every child, every lunatic, in fact all animals, quadrupeds possess’s. Every Muslim is aware in this cursed statement Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge has been disrespected.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 197/198, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s First Rebuttle - Aisa Is Without Jaisa: “You have stated that meaning of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is; jaisa knowledge of Ghayb is possessed by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa is possessed by every insane, in fact all animals, quadrupeds. حاشا و كلا. If this is the meaning of the statement even then I would consider the statement to be Kufr because in it would be clear insult of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). But this is not the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman because in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman the word jaisa has not been used. This word (jaisa) you add to (the statement of Hifz ul-Iman) yourself. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman word used is aisa not jaisa. Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib neither reason nor honesty has come near you yet. When reason and honesty was being distributed then I think you was sleeping. Enemy of reason in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman where is jaisa? Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is as follows: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …’ If in this statement jaisa was used then it would have been as follows: ‘Jaisa Ghayb knowledge is possessed by RasoolAllah (salallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa is also possessed by Zayd, Umar, every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds.’ This (statement with jaisa); it would have been according to me; and in fact according to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib also, there would have been definate disrespect and derogration.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 199/200, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s First Rebuttle -: Aisa With/Without Jaisa Means Same: “All praises are for Allah! Maulvi Manzoor Sahib has attested to my position. But in fact by presenting Thanvi Sahid he has certified my claim. My claim was; Hifz ul-Iman’s meaning is unclean and one who believes it is out of Islam and is from those who degrade’s the grand status and is disrespecter of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Maulvi (Naumani) Sahib and (Shaykh) Thanvi Sahib has explicitly stated the same. This is confessional statement: … (poetical line not translated) … Honorable listenters listen carefully. Maulvi Manzoor Sahib is saying that according to Maulvi Ahsraf Ali Thanvi Sahib in the following statement there is insult and subject is impure: ‘Jaisa knowledge of Ghayb matters; is of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa is of every child and every insane but in fact every animal and every quadruped possesses.’ Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s unclean statement is as follows on which the dispute is based on: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e.calf, ownl donkey etc) …’ People of justice should focus on the fact that Hifz ul-Iman’s statement subject/meaning is same which Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is declaring to be impure in his Bast al-Banan. Arguing over the word usage is not way of people of knowledge (when the meaning is exactly the same). By ignoring argument based on word play every person will be compelled to agree the meaning of both statement is in total agreement and in them there is no disagreement in meaning. In both sentences same meaning has been conveyed. For example one person says: ‘Jaisa face is of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi aisa face is of an owl and donkey.’ Second person says: ‘This face of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi; what is so special about it; aisa face is also of an owl and donkey.’ Every intelligent and justice peferring Deobandi-Wahhabi would said the meaning of these two statements is exactly same. And in both (statements) insult Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Even though in the first statement word aisa and jaisa both have been employed. And in the second only aisa is used but not jaisa. In this fashion Hifz ul-Iman’s filthy statement and Bast al-Banan’s unclean statement’s meaning is same. Even though Hifz ul-Iman’s statement uses word aisa and not jaisa. And in Bast al-Banan’s statement aisa and jaisa both are present[02]. Ever after this much explanation one yet does not comprehend the insult in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and to decieve the Muslims say that in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman word used is aisa and not jaisa therefore there is no insult. Then (it has to be said) he is sworn enemy of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and avowed ally of Shaykh Thanvi. For him (a statement of) aisa with absence of jaisa establishes insult of Shaykh Thanvi but it does not occur to him that the word aisa is used without jaisa. Yet for him (statement of Shaykh Thanvi) must have combination of aisa and jaisa for it to be insult of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And if there is no jaisa (in the statement) but only aisa then there is no insult.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 202/204, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s Second Rebuttle -: You’re Inserting Jaisa Into Hifz ul-Iman: “Why do you add the word jaisa into statement of Hifz ul-Iman to create the meaning of disrespect. See the statement is completely free of blame: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …’[03] For you there is no room to embellish (statement of Hifz ul-Iman). The meaning conveyed in Hifz ul-Iman exactly the same meaning has been stated in your Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah) books. But what cure do I have for (your) immodesity and shamelessness!” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 208, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s Second Rebuttle: Example Of Aisa Insulting Without Jaisa: “Honorable Maulvi! During my earlier speech I had quite clearly/detailedly established that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting even if jaisa is absent and there is only aisa but you did not respond to my that point/speech. Instead you repeated what was already refuted. This is clear proof of your (attempt) to avoid (the subject matter). I will give another example in support of my claim. (If) a person says this: ‘What is so special about baaz knowledge of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi; aisa knowledge is even possessed by insane, and animals, and donkeys.’ If any Deobandi says in response to it that in this statement Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is being insulted because the meaning of statement is; jaisa knowledge Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi possesses aisa knowledge is also possessed by insane, animals, donkeys. And the one who made the statement says in this statement word aisa has been used not jaisa . You’re unnecesserily adding the word jaisa into the statement to make the statement insulting. Will the Deobandis accept his Taweel? And if not, and (you will) definitely will not (accept this Taweel). Then why do you invent this Taweel for filthy statement of Hifz ul-Iman? A (Taweel) which is not even acceptable to you. Wahhabis! The truth of matter is in your heart there is no respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so that you understand insult (of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 210/211, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s Third Rebuttle: Aisa In Meaning Of Itna And Is-Qadr: “In statement of Hifz ul-Iman aisa is not used for comparision. In this statement if aisa was used for sake of comparision then I would also attest that Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being disrespected and therefore it is Kufr. But aisa in this statement has been used in meaning of itna and is-qadr. Meaning aisa (as itna) is for stating quantity. Famous Urdu poet Ameer Meenahi in his popular book, Ameer ul-Lughat, vol two, page 302, presents his research on aisa saying: Aisa (meaning) itna, is-qadr. Sentence; ‘aisa mara ad mowa kar deeya. And; Us badah kash ka jism heh aisa lateef wa saaf, zana par ghumah heh moj sharab ka.’ (poet; Barq). After this he presents three more meanings of aisa for which there is no need. In addition to this, people of (Urdu) language consistently in their usage say; ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.’ May Allah forgive! Is the intention to compare power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with power of another? In the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman), like it, word aisa has not been used for comparision but in this statement the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and is-qadr. Yes, aisa is also used for comparision but for it word jaisa is needed. And because in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman word aisa is present and not jaisa therefore in it aisa is not for comparision. By introducing word jaisa into (statement of Hifz ul-Iman) you have given proof of your dubious (character). And provided evidence for being a looser and distorter.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 213/214, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s Third Rebuttle: Aisa, Itna And Jaisa And Hifz ul-Iman: “You have wasted your time in giving few meanings of word aisa. What was the need for this? Who says that word aisa is only used in meaning of comparision. Every Urdu speaker/literate (person) knows that aisa sometimes is used for comparision, some places to inform of quantity, and in some places for admiration/praise. Here the debate is over, only on point, in which meaning word aisa has been used in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. I say that in this statement aisa is for comparision and you say here the word aisa is for mention of quantity; meaning (you say) aisa is in meaning of itna and is-qadr. And I say insult (of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) still remains. (Not only that) but has become even more clear and obvious. Listen to this I will read (statement of) Hifz ul-Iman: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); (aisa in meaning of) itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e.calf, ownl donkey etc) …’ Now every Urdu literate/speaker, should get verdict (literally; fatwah) from his heart (which is full) of faith, that in this (statement); is there disprespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Now the meaning of this statement is clearly that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is itna (in quantity) jitna (i.e. as-much) as children, insane, animals, and quadrupeds. It is speciality of Wahhabi sect that (they) clearly disrespect the eminence of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and abuse (him) to their heart content. You made Taweel to avoid and protect (from charge of) Kufr. Yet due to your Taweel the disrespect has become more evident. All this is display of your shameless Wahhabism. It seems Kufr is in love with Wahhabism. Now remains your sentence: ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.’ In it rightly word aisa is not for comparision but what connection does this statement has got with statement of Hifz ul-Iman? This (example of yours) is not like-example (of statement of Hifz ul-Iman where aisa is used) but Hifz ul-Iman’s like-example would be like; if a disrespectful and mannerless person like your Thanvi Sahib says: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute power to holy being of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this power; all powers are zaati and atahi, or baaz; if baaz powers are intended; then in this what is so unique about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); aisi powers are even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if qull powers are intended then this is intellectually and textually false because Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) power is zaati not atahi power.’ Tell me in this statement aisa is for comparision or not? Your honor has invented a new principle; until aisa is not with word jaisa it will not be for comparision, and there will be no comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with of infants, lunatics, animals, qaudrupeds, until jaisa is part of it) nor there will be disrespect. You seem to be ignorant of Urdu phraselogy. Firstly tell me who has written this principle (and where)? Secondly even if your point is taken on board then for asia to be of comparision jaisa is lafzi qarina: (A matter of principle is) when word of comparision is omitted even then meaning of comparision remains. As an example if someone says:’Zaid shey’r heh.’[04] (Meaning would be:) ‘Zaid Shey’r jaisa bahadur heh.’[05] How can the meaning of comparision can be negated when lafz qarina is omitted (because jaisa can be justifiably assumed into meaning of statement as demonstrated in example). It could be that instead of jaisa there maybe another qarina of comparision and there is in this statement. Meaning negation of speciality (of prophetic Ghayb knowledge and of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and affirmation of partnership (of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds in baaz knowledge of Ghayb).[06] Thirdly principle/president of your seminary of Deobandi Maulvi Hussain Ahmad on page 111 of his book al-Shihab as-Saqib regarding the same unclean statement wrote: “… word aisa is utterance of comparision …”[07] You stated word aisa without jaisa is not of comparision and yet president of your (seminary of) Deoband is saying that in this statement aisa is of comparision. Even though there is no jaisa. So tell out of you two who is a liar and who is truthful? Fourthly if a person says: ‘Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi knowledge; aisa is of animals and quadrupeds.’ In this aisa is of comparision or not? If it is (of comparision) then according to what rule/principle it is (not) so? And in this is there insult directed toward Maulvi Ashraf Ali or not? If you say there is (insult directed toward Shaykh Thanvi) then in this (sentence) there is aisa without jaisa. And if you say no (there is not insult) then do you give permission (to us) that (we) publish regarding Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi similar statements? Will you and any other Deoband will not find it displeasing? You say that: ‘If in this statement aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be disrespect for Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and therefore it is Kufr.’[08] And yet principle of your (seminary of) Deoband says that aisa is for comparision like it has already (been proven). Listen to another; on page 113 of Shahab al-Saqib it is stated: “Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.”[09] Be just; you say that if aisa in the statement is of comparision it would be insulting and Kufr and your principle (of seminary of) Deoband is saying that aisa is of comparision. The understanding (of aisa) which principle of Deoband is stating according to this reason you accepted Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is Kafir.[10] Say Maulvi Manzoor what is your opinion (regarding this)? […] (7) Sign this transcript: ‘If baaz knowledge is intended then in this what is so special about Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi? Aisa (in meaning of itna and is-qadr) knowledge is possessed by Zaid, Amr, in fact every infant, lunatic, in fact all animals and quadrupends.’” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 215/219, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s Fourth Rebuttle: Aisa Without Jaisa Is Insulting Shaykh Thanvi: “My faith is that one who insults my master (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is certainly Kafir. You have in this turn employed insulting words for Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib: ‘Aisa knowledge of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib is also possessed by animals and quadrupeds.’ Any person who utters words like this against the dignity of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi such (person) is insulter and should get his head examined. […] And the example which you gave me signing for Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, it is extremely disrespectful of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib. One who insults Maulana Thanvi Sahib in this manner such person is an idiot and ignorant.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 220/221, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s Fourth Rebuttle: “You have repeatedly claimed Hifz ul-Iman’s state is free of blame. This sentence of yours is not answer to all of my (seven) questions nor you saying this will make it blameless. First you claimed if aisa is without jaisa then (aisa) is not for comparision. I refuted your this point and proved in presence of this gathering that aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is of comparision and in it is clear insult and disrespect of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in order to decieve the public you did not openly acknowledge it. Now when I gave example of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib (in a statement which was) with aisa but without jaisa then you was (and) in fact the entire group of people with you (on podium) is in distress. Even though in this example word is aisa and with it not is word jaisa. Here you do not listen/accept any excuse and nor you remember/employ (your) rule of aisa without jaisa. What’s the reason? Matter is that you and your entire sect of Wahhabism has founded faith on Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi (and not on Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[11] For this reason you and in fact entire sect of Wahhabism does not tolerate insult of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi for even a minute but for holy honour of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) you and your sect of Wahhabism’s leaders have published abundant of insults and disrespects and abuse. These you did not find displeasing. In order to decieve the attendees of meeting you outwardly say that one who insults Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir. Is this edict of yours for others? Can your leaders direct insults toward illuminated Hadhoor, intercessor of day of gathering (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as they wish?Can they disrespect (him), disparage him for them is not (is this teaching of yours)? I wish your heart had even spec worth of faith then today you would not have defended one who has insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). At one instance you say one who insults the blessed soil of purified Madinah is Kafir and then in another instance you say; a person who says knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is of mad (people), animals, quadrupeds; you consider him to be your mentor and leader. Give up this double standard and repent.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 222/223, here.] Conclusion: In the first turn, Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) employed jaisa while explaining the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In first rebuttle Shaykh Naumani objected to usage of aisa arguing addition of jaisa turns the statement of Shaykh Thanvi to statement of comparision. In his first rebuttle Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) replied addition of jaisa while explaining the statement of Hifz ul-Iman does not change its meaning. And then he went to quote form statement of Hifz ul-Iman with addition of jaisa and also quoted the original statement of Hifz ul-Iman with aisa. And appealed to common sense of people to decide if both statements mean the same or not. In addition he formed a stated with jaisa regarding Shaykh Thanvi and similar meaning statement with aisa to demonstrate aisa without jaisa is of Tashbeeh and insult is implied. To which, as par Sunni account of debate, Shaykh Naumani did not reply in the following rebuttle. In the second rebuttle Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) again formed statements of aisa without jaisa which were insulting Shaykh Thanvi to lure Shaykh Naumani into his pre-planned trap. And in his fourth rebuttle Shaykh Naumani rather stupidly went on to confirm statement of Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) even with, aisa and without jaisa, is insulting Shaykh Thanvi. With this confession Shaykh Naumani undermined entire basis of his defence argument. In the third rebuttle of Shaykh Naumani he attempted to capitalise on the fact that aisa without jaisa can be used in various meanings. And since there is no jaisa one is without justification to insert it in the text of Hifz ul-Iman. In third rebuttle of Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) he argued absence of jaisa is not proof of its absence. He argued with examples in which aisa is used but not jaisa yet implications of the statement are explained with usage of jaisa. In other words jaisa is omitted but is supposed into text when aisa statement is explained. It is similar to writing, harf akhir, yet it is read as harf -e- akhir, point is if hamza (i.e. pronounced as, ay) is omitted from writing it is supposed to be assumed into text. When the statement is of Tashbeeh due to usage of aisa then jaisa is to be read into original text . He also went on to argue negation of speciality of one over another can only be if x is compared with z and conclusion arrived is; one is not better over the other -; in other words Tashbeeh can be implied from context. And we find statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such a statement in which speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated hence the jaisa aspect can definitely be established from statement even though its omitted. At the end of third rebuttle Allama Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) presented to Shaykh Naumani statement, where aisa was used without inclusion of jaisa, which he wanted Shaykh Naumani to attest as sign of agreement but Shaykh Naumani refused to sign the agreement stating it is insulting Shaykh Thanvi. Yet he could not agree to this and invented out of thin air rule, aisa without jaisa is not of Tashbeeh, but he did not and could not apply the same for his Shaykh Thanvi. Lastly Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Madani, who was senior and teacher of Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani considered statement of Shaykh Thanvi statement of Tashbeeh even though it was without jaisa. The discussion between Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Naumani establishes from linguistical principles point view that statement of Shaykh Thanvi is of comparision. And therefore it is insulting and Kufr and one who believes it and defends it is after correct knowledge regarding it has been imparted to him/her regarding it then if such a person continues to defend it is Kafir. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNote: - [01] I have reason to believe Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) did not insert these but rather these words were inserted by compiler to give example of what is included in each category. After reading the account number of times I have not noted any protest from Shaykh Naumani. And if these were the words of Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) at very least Shaykh Naumani would have mentioned them at the very least once. If Shaykh Naumani can cry foul over addition of jaisa while explaining statement of Hifz ul-Iman this would have been greater cause for crying foul. Due to this I am confident these are insertions of compiler and therefore the statements should be read without words in brackets. - [02] The statement Muhadith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is pointing to is what Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi referrenced to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) Hussam ul-Haramayn; it uses aisa and jaisa. And it’s translation is being quoted: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] - [03] The complier of debate Mawlana Muhammad Hamid al-Shafi did not quote the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Yet the Urdu sentence and its translated form indicates it was quoted hence it is being inserted into text. Also if quote is not inserted then Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) speech does not connect to Shaykh Naumani’s 2nd rebuttle. Implication of which is statement is without jaisa therefore no insult. - [!] It seems Sunni compiler of debate deliberately omitted insults of Shaykh Naumani directed toward Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). In Deobandi account of debate Shaykh Naumani used aisa phrased statements to insult Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and admitted even though statement is without jaisa it is still insulting. Whatever the reason for omission the confession is being quoted from Deobandi account of debate. Please note in Sunni debate account Shaykh Naumani’s insults directed toward Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) are omitted but the confession that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is mentioned in fourth rebuttle of Shaykh Naumani. - [04] Translates to: ‘Zaid is lion.’ - [05] Translates to: ‘Zaid is corageous like a lion.’ - [06] In simple words; Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in having knowledge of Ghayb because he said knolwedge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed by other creations. For him to negate the speciality he had to compare the the type and quantity of Ghuyub known to both parties (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam VS Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds) and after comparing and reaching conclusion knowledge of both parties is equale and of same type he could negate speciality of prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). - [07] “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] - [08] The closest to what Mawlana Sardar Ahmad attributed to Shaykh Naumani is following -: found in beginning of third rebuttle: ‘In this statement if aisa was used for sake of comparision then I would also attest that Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being disrespected and therefore it is Kufr.’ I assume Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) was just conveying the meaning. And it is expected that it would be difficult to remember everything and quote verbatim. Or even if Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Naumani verbatim the compiler has conveyed the meaning of what Shaykh Naumani said. - [09] “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “…if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] - [10] The conclusion of Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) does not follow/agree with what he established. It is illogical to conclude that Shaykh Madani wrote it is for comparision and conclude Shaykh Naumani agrees that Shaykh Thanvi is Kafir. More logical and rational conclusion would have been: ‘Shaykh Madani understands the statement of Hifz ul-Iman in sense of Tashbeeh/comparision and his understanding of statement according to you (i.e. Shaykh Naumani) is Kufr therefore Shaykh Madani guilty of Kufr according to you.’ Or he could have modified the last part and ended it with a question: ‘Shaykh Madani understands the statement of Hifz ul-Iman in sense of Tashbeeh/comparision and his understanding of statement according to you (i.e. Shaykh Naumani) is Kufr. Now my question to you is: Is Shaykh Madani guilty of Kufr/Kafir?’ If Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) made the statement he made mistake. But I believe he did not because his scholarly credentials and his calibre of scholarship was too high for this amatur blunder. This is only place where I find myself disagreeing with Mawlana Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) understanding/conclusion. - [11] Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) has implied that Shaykh Naumani and his clan of Deobandis has based their faith in Islam due to accepting Shaykh Thanvi as Prophet of Allah (subanahu wa ta’ala) and not on basis of believing Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Introduction: Shaykh Naumani believes aisa in statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in meaning of Itna and Yeh. And it is not used in sense of Tashbeeh. According to Shaykh Naumani Aisa in meaning of Tashbeeh is Kufr. Islamic position is aisa on its natural meaning is of Tasbeeh and therefore prophtetic knowledge of Ghayb is being compared/Tashbeeh with those mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. And if aisa is returned to baaz, via itna, or via Tashbeeh even then in both cases prophetic knowledge is being Tashbeeh’ed via baaz to creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. 0.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement In Dispute: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 0.1 - Shaykh Naumani Aisa Meaning Itna And Yeh: Shaykh Naumani argues his case Aisa means Itna in following: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] With regards to usage of Aisa in meaning of Yeh he states: “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] He states both Yeh and Itna referr to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb and why he chose Itna and Yeh in following:“I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear. And in both instances (i.e. itna/yeh) baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] After stating that Yeh and Itna both return to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb he states that route to reach to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb would be different but destination is same. And therefore Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be intended due Aisa meaning Yeh/Itna: “And only difference is of explanation and of topic but result of both is one and the same. But from this (baaz) knowledge (equal quantity) of RasoolAllah (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be intended (meaning of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement) at all.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91/92, here.] “Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Shaykh Naumani negates Tashbeeh and affirms Aisa in meaning Itna and Yeh. And he returned Itna/Yeh to Baaz knowledge of Ghayb because his objective is to refute the argument; Shaykh Thanvi equaled the quantity of Prophetic knowledge. 1.0 - Tashbeeh In Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: Common sense dictates statement like of Hifz ul-Iman there has to be Tashbeeh. To negate or to affirm a merit in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman one has to be compared with another. And to say: There is nothing righteous about Thanvi: Men like Thanvi are no better then Ibleesiyeen incarnate. Comparision has to be made to come to this conclusion. Another example: There is nothing special about this apple; it is sweet like that apple. One apple is being compared with another to negate is speciality. Point is to negate speciality of one apple one was compared with the other. Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality of Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and equated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to animals, lunatics, infants in knowledge of Ghayb: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] And he could not negate his speciality if he had not compared prophetic knowledge with the creations he mentioned. When Tashbeeh is fundamental part of statement then there is no other alternative to but to agree that Aisa is of Tashbeeh. He said Aisa is in meaning of Itna and Yeh and not of Tashbeeh. Even this does not change anything; in the statement speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated and for it comparision between two parties is fundamental hence Itna/Yeh has to be of Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended for prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Itna/Yeh Baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared to lunatics, infants, animals, everyday Joe’s in his knowledge of Ghayb. 1.1 - Equality In Quantity Has To Be Established To Negate Speciality: Suppose A and B are being compared in knowledge and speciality/uniqueness of A is negated. Speciality and uniqueness of knowledge known to A can be negated; if there is equality in quantity of knowledge. Or if the knowledge possessed by A is less then knowledge known to B. If Amr believes A’s knowledge is greater in quantity and the type of knowledge known to A is unique/special to A then Amr cannot legitimately negate speciality of A. Rather greater quantity and the type of knowledge known to A establishes his speciality and uniqueness. Coming to the statement of Shaykh Thanvi; he negated speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in knowing Ghayb with following words: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Statement indicates Shaykh Thanvi believes the quantity and the type of knowledge of Ghayb known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal/less then creations he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman. If he believed the Ghuyub types known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are unqiue to him in comparision to mentioned creations and the quantity known to him is greater he would not have negated speciality because then speciality and merit would be established over Zayd, Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. Undeniably this establishes Shaykh Thanvi compared the two equal quantities to negate speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in knowing Ghayb. 1.2 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna/Yeh Or Of Tashbeeh: Shaykh Naumani wrote Aisa is of not Tashbeeh but it is in meaning of Itna/Yeh. Knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of Zayd, Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; to negate speciality of Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then how can Aisa not be of Tashbeeh? If there was actually no Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman then Aisa without Tashbeeh would have been respectable. Coming to home of Shaykh Naumani and his teacher; Shaykh Madani reveals the reality of Aisa: “If it was word itna (i.e. this-much) then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Shaykh Madani after giving number of examples in which Tashbeeh is made and only a single quality/merit is compared he goes on to say Aisa and its Tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is in Baaz knowledge of Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where Tashbeeh is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being Tashbeeh’ed/compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact Tashbeeh/comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] Therefore according to Shaykh Madani the teacher of Shaykh Naumani; Aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is of Tashbeeh. And with this Shaykh Madani has refuted his student and established position of Muslims. Any how if we ignore Aisa in sense of Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and take it to mean Itna/Yeh in light of Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel and it returns to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. In this context Baaz Ilm of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with; Zayd, Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; to negate/refute speciality/uniqueness of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Baaz Ghayb knowledge. In conclusion it needs to be said that Aisa is of Tashbeeh; be it Aisa without Taweel of Itna/Yeh, or be it in meaning Itna/Yeh; Tashbeeh is fundamentally part of Aisa and all it’s meanings i.e. Itna, Is-Qadr, and Yeh. 2.0 - Yeh And Itna Return To Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb: Shaykh Naumani believes both Yeh/Itna return to mention of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb therefore Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and Tashbeeh isn’t possible. Following is reflection of what Shaykh Naumani believes: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/yeh baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] If Itna returns to Baaz then Tashbeeh is in quantity of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Baaz Ghuyub known to mentioned creations. Implication of which is; Baaz Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is like the mentioned creations. If Zameer (i.e. hint) of Yeh is returned to Baaz knowledge of Ghayb then implications are; from Baaz the type of Ghayb knowledge known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also known to mentioned creations. And all these Taweelat are just as insulting and disrespectful. And belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) via his knowledge of Ghayb. Islamic perspective is that Taweel of Aisa to Itna/Yeh directly returns to mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghayb knowledge, and then returns to Baaz: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/yeh baaz1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] And if hint of Itna is returned to mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the statement then implication Tashbeeh is between the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and quantity of mentioned creations. And implications of this would be that Shaykh considers prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal with mentioned creations and therefore he negates speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If hint of Yeh is turned to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the statement then Tashbeeh is of type of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Ghuyub known to creations. And in this context of Itna/Yeh; Baaz is inserted as part of essential details. 2.1 - Explaining The Out Come Of Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel : In simple format Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel would translate into: Itna/Yeh > Baaz > Ghayb Knowledge > Prophet = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And Islamic position would translate to: Itna/Yeh > Prophet’s > Ghayb Knowledge = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. Islamic understanding of his Itna/Yeh establishes Tashbeeh in equal quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and of creations mentioned in the statement. Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel negates explicit equality in quantity but affirms Tashbeeh in Baaz Ghayb even though he rejects the existance of it.[See 1.0, and 1.1] Due to these facts Deobandi Taweel or Islamic scholarships understanding; both are two sides of same coin called disrespect. No sane Muslim would choose one over another. Conclusions: Shaykh Naumani’s Taweelat result the following order: Itna/Yeh à Baaz > Ghayb Knowledge > Prophet = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And Ahle Sunnats understanding of statement of Hifz ul-Iman is as follows: Itna/Yeh > Prophet’s > Ghayb Knowledge = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And both routes lead to insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel; Aisa in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of Itna/Yeh and not of Tasbeeh is ignoring fact; there is actual Tashbeeh being made between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the creations mentioned to negate speciality of Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore Aisa in meaning of Tashbeeh requires no Taweel. Rather it perfectly fits into context of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Madani is legitimately held to position that Aisa is of Tashbeeh. This is proof of Deobandi refuting Deobandi. And lies of liars being exposed by allies of Shaykh Thanvi. And even if the Taweel of Aisa is made to mean Itna/Yeh Tashbeeh remains fundamental part of both because change of Aisa to Itna/Yeh does not remove the Tashbeeh being made jus the nature of Tashbeeh is changed. Itna denotes Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb and Yeh denotes Tashbeeh in types of Ghayb and quantity of Baaz. And according to Shaykh Naumani Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman would make the statement of Hifz ul-Iman Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Shaykh Naumani took Aisa in meaning of Itna and Shaykh Dharbangi took it to mean Itna and Is-Qadr. And both stated in statement of Shaykh Thanvi Aisa is not of Tashbeeh. Shaykh Thanvi did not define Aisa to mean Itna/Is-Qadr but gave example of usage of Aisa laid the foundation of which lead both Shuyukh to determine Aisa is in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr. Shaykh Naumani, as far I am aware, gave few examples of his own to establish Aisa is in meaning of Itna. In light of their examples and linguistic usage of Aisa we see if Shaykh Naumani’s Aisa in meaning of Itna and Shaykh Dharbangi’s Is-Qadr is free of blame. Or they have further compounded the problem for themselves. 0.0 - Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 0.1 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna, Is-Qadr And Yeh: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi while explaining his statement of Bast al-Banan gave underlined example to demonstrate Aisa is not used in meaning of Tashbeeh: “From this discussion we learn that in the mentioned statement knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not been compared/equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Umru and others. And the word aisa is not used every time for Tashbeeh. According people who speak the lanugage they use it popularly in; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is aisa powerful.[1] So in this is there intention to compare the power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with another? No! Not at all …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Based on this Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi argued Aisa is in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr: “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Based on Shaykh Thanvi’s usage of Aisa Shaykh Naumani also took Aisa to mean Itna: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘Khuda aisa qadir e mutliq heh.’[!] Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] In another place Shaykh Naumani gives another example in which Aisa can be used to mean Itna: “You have asked me to provide evidence of aisa being used in meaning of itna linguistically and in popular culture. Indeed this demand of yours is legitimate. Listen! Ameer Minahai (the blessed) in his; Ameer ul-Lughaat, Volume two, page 302 has presented a perfect/detailed research on usage of word aisa. And has mentioned few meanings. From all of them one meaning which I have mentioned. In this situation following is his statement: ‘AISA; (means) itna, is-qadr. SENTENCE: Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.[2] POETICAL VERSE: Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf.[3] Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.’ (Barq). There you go now I have established from linguistics that aisa is used without Tashbeeh in meaning of itna.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77/78, here.] In conclusion Shaykh Thanvi laid the foundation of Aisa to mean Itna and Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Dharbangi spelt out the implication of example to mean Itna/Is-Qadr. Therefore when the injunction is issued all three would be guilty of same crime of Islamic law. 1.0 - Itna Is For Equality In Quantity – Itna Marbles You Have: Thanvi owns three marbles. Nanotavi owns three marbles. Both of them are debating over who owns greater quantity of marbles. Enter Sajid Khan, the Pathan, with weak Urdu. Sajid Khan doesn’t know proper usage of Itna, Itni and Itnay due to his weak Urdu. Yet both, Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Nanotavi, agree to make him judge. Sajid Khan says to Shaykh Thanvi to place in a single line on the floor: O O O. After Shaykh Thanvi is done Sajid Khan tells Shaykh Nanotavi; now you place your marbles next to Shaykh Thanvi’s marbles. Shaykh Nanotavi completes the difficult task: OO OO OO. Sajid Khan looks at both Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Nanotavi and enquires do you have any more marbles? Both say: No! Being smart and educated Sajid Khan points out; one of Shaykh Thanvi’s marble is next to Shaykh Nanotavi’s marble and this establishes quantitive equality. He looks at Shaykh Nanotavi and says to him: ‘Teen marble Thanvi kay pass thay aur itna marble tumaray pass heh.[4] Then why are you two arguing who has greater quantity of marbles!’ Sajid Khan is right because jitna (i.e. as-much) marbles Shaykh Thanvi owned Itnay[5] were owned by Shaykh Nanotavi. End. Therefore we come to conclusion; Itna in Urdu is used when there is equality in quantity of two items. 1.1 - Itna Is Not For Quantitive Disparity – Three He Has And Itna Five I Have: Shaykh Dehalvi and Shaykh Gangohi are best friends. Both decide to pool equal amount of money and purchase eight commonly crows roast feast at home. Shaykh Gangohi being bit dishonest and avid eater of crows commonly found in subcontinent; appropriates five crows for himself and hands three to Shaykh Dehalvi. Shaykh Dehalvi argues with Shaykh Gangohi that he is being cheated by Shaykh Gangohi even though he pooled equal amount of money. Both take their dispute to Sajid Khan, the Pathan, with good Urdu. Shaykh Dehalvi presents case; we brought eight common-crows, each one Kg. And says he has been given three common-crows and Shaykh Gangohi has kept five for himself even we both paid equal amoung of money toward the purchase. Shaykh Gangohi says: ‘Mein jhoot nahin bolta, mera ihtibar keren, Shaykh Dehalvi kay pass teen Zagh e maroofan heh, itna hi panch mein nay apnay pass rakha heh.’[6] Sajid Khan asks both to show the bags and counts three and five and then says: Shaykh Gangohi you are liar. In your bag you have five plump and delicious crows and in Shaykh Dehalvi’s bag there are three mouth wateringly sumptuous crows. Shaykh Gangohi says: ‘Mein nay kab kaha meray pass teen crow hen. Mein nay toh itna kaha heh, aur itna toh size wasteh istimal hota heh; mein nay itna bara amrood khaya.’[7] Sajid Khan: My dear Shaykh Gangohi you stated: ‘… Shaykh Dehalvi kay pass teen Zagh e maroofan heh, itna hi panch mein nay apnay pass rakha heh.’ Itna denotes you have kept same quantity, this is reason for which you was accused of lieing, and your lie is exposed because you acknowledged you kept five. Itna cannot be used in context where there is imbalance of quantity. Itna is used to denote sameness of quantity. Gramatically if the quantity of crows was four each then your following statement would accurately reflect usage of Itna: ‘I am not lieing, trust me, Ismail Dehalvi is in possession of four common-crows, as-much (as him) I have kept four for my self.’ Sajid Khan continues: You said; Itna was used by you to denote size and not quantity. The dispute is about quantity and not size so your statement about size in context of quantity would make no sense. I say it politely; you’re lieing to cover-up your previous lie. End. Therefore we come to conclusion; when there is inequality in quantity of two items Itna cannot be used. 1.2 - Itna Used In Quantitive Equality And Not In Context Of Disparity: When Itna is used in context of two quantities, being compared with each other, or merit of one is being negated by mention of another, then equality in quantity must exist otherwise, usage of Itna would be gramatically incorrect. Please note even if the figures of quantity have not be declared like in the following equality in quantity is implied by default: ‘Nothing special about Thanvi’s knowledge; this-much knowledge even child has.’ Or if out of two parties ones quantity is declared and the others is not mentioned even then Itna would establish equality of quantity. 2.0 - Out-Come Of Itna Being For Quantitive Equality: Shaykh Naumani’s understanding that Aisa is in meaning of Itna. It has been established that Itna when it is used in context of two quantities then there is quantitive equality in both quantities. Also the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is being negated by Shaykh Thanvi. In the context of statement; negation of speciality of prophetic Ghayb could only be if Shaykh Thanvi believed there is equality in quantity: “… intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something…” As such Shaykh Thanvi’s example of; “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.”, Shaykh Naumani’s Itna and Shaykh Darbhangi’s Is-Qadr are of equality in quantity. And this meaning is supported by context of statement becaue Shaykh negated Takhsees of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and this negation of Takhsees can only be correct if the type of Ghayb and quantity of Ghayb is is believed to be same for both parties. Otherwise party with greater knowledge would have Takhsees over party with lesser quantity of knowledge. So it must be that Shaykh Thanvi believed equality in quantity of knowledge. Lastly Shaykh Madani al-Deobandi, aka the mini-gun of insults, has following to say about Itna: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] According to Shaykh Madani Itna is of equality of quantity. 2.1 - Fatwah Of Kufr On Equality Of Quantity Issued By Shaykh Thanvi: According to Shaykh Naumani; Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi was asked about one who establishes equality in quantity of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the mentioned creations in Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. Shaykh Thanvi replied: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification: … (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] Shaykh Naumani presents his understanding of the edict in his own words: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] According to Shaykh Naumani one who establishes quantative equality between the Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the creations which Shaykh mentioned such a person is Kafir according to Shaykh Thanvi and himself. 2.2 - The Conclusion Of Itna And Is-Qadr Taweel Of Aisa: Sections 1.0 to 1.2 establish that Itna is used where there is equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi took aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman to mean itna/is-qadr and we have established they are for equality in quantity. According to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani himself equal quantity warrants Kufr. If aisa is in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr in Hifz ul-Iman then equality in quantity would be established. Hence Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi, would be Kafirs in judgement of Shaykh Thanvi. And Shaykh Thanvi would be Kafir in judgment of Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi because both believe his statement uses aisa in meaning of itna/is-qadr. So instead of good the result is their own evil has caught them in the web of their own deceit and distortions. 3.0 - Itna In Light Of Shaykh Thanvi’s And Shaykh Naumani’s Examples: Shaykh Thanvi used following to justify Taweel of Aisa: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.” Based on Shaykh Thanvi’s example; Shaykh Naumani said Aisa is in meaning of Itna and gave following example to justify its usage: “Khuda aisa qadir e mutliq heh.” Shaykh Naumani also gave following example to justify Aisa mean Itna: “Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.” He also quoted poetical verse of certain poet with name of Barq: “Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf. Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.” In addition to these following can be examples of Aisa being in meaning of Itna: ‘Aisa meetha malta.’ Another example: ‘Mirza Qadiyani aisa Kafir thah.’ In all these places Aisa is in meaning of Itna and it is being used to highlight significance and greatness of a quality. And normally these type of sentences are followed by another statement which indicates greatness of quantity being implied. And one example of this is the poetical verse quoted by Shaykh Naumani: “Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf. Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.”[8] Poet says; body of that alcahol drinker is so delicate and blemishless that in my imagination [or understanding] it is akin to alcahol and a woman. Poet is equating purity and delicateness of a person to beautiful blemishless woman and alcahol. Shaykh Naumani gave another example: “Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.” And the following portion indicates greatness of quantity: “Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.” Another example would be: ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir e mutliq heh keh us nay tamam qaynaat aur us mein hayat banahi. Aur idol aisa bey-qudra keh makhi nahin bana sakta balkay agar kuch cheen leh toh aisa la-char hey keh wapis bi nahin la sakta .’[9] Please note in this example Allah’s greatness in quantity is that He created everything. And idol’s helpness/powerlessness establishes it has greatly low quantity of power to the point of inability to do anything. Therefore usage of Aisa in meaning of Itna in phrases employed by Shaykh Naumani is to highlight the greatness of quantity and superiority of person possessing quality. 3.1 - Itna Of Great Quantity and Itna Of Greatly Insignificant Quanity: Shaykh Naumani believes Aisa in statement of Shaykh Thanvi is not of Tashbeeh. He instead purposed Aisa is in meaning of Itna -; again without Tashbeeh, and Itna is not of equality, and in the statement prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not being discussed[10] in the following: “… aisa/Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In light of usage of Aisa/Itna in examples of Shaykh Naumani as demonstrated in previous section and his belief underlined in this section the result is that Ghayb knowledge of following is greater in quantity: “… aisa/itna (i.e. great quantity of baaz) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” And in the context of what preceded before this statement it would mean; Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Baaz Ghayb lacks speciality because Zayd, infants, lunatics and animals possess great quantity of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa/itna (great quantity of baaz) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Best way to understand it is to punctuate the statement again and pause for one second right before the next sentence begins and then proceed to read it: “If baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Aisa/Itna (great quantity of baaz) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds.” What can be more insulting then this that Shaykh Nuamani’s Taweel exalts knowledge of random idiots, lunatics, infants, animals and all while negating speciality of prophetic Ghayb. 3.2 – Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel In Perspective Of Truth: Now Shaykh Naumani’s supporters may argue he believes knowledge of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi is insignificant compared to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); like in the following therefore great quantity of baaz insertion in brackets is unjust. We will say that accessment of his Itna/Aisa was made in light of his examples which I quoted but if you want to change the Itna/Aisa to greatly insignificant quantity be my guest. Before we respond to this it important to note that even though Shaykh Naumani said Aisa/Itna is not of Tashbeeh, nor equality in quantity is intended, nor Prophetic Baaz knowledge of Ghayb is being discussed the truth is in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. And it refutes the distortion of Shaykh Naumani: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa/Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] If Shaykh Naumani intended Itna/Aisa of insignificance then the statement would read: “… aisa/itna (greatly insignificant baaz quantity) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” And because contextually speciality of prophetic Ghayb knowledge is being negated/refuted by Shaykh Thanvi. Therefore it must be that Shaykh Thanvi employs equality between knowledge for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and for creations; Zayd, Amr; infants, lunatic, animals, quadrupeds. If he considered greater quantity for prophetic knowledge then how would it be possible for him to negate speciality because greatness of quantity and quality establishes speciality. Hence if Itna/Aisa was of insignificance then contextually same Itna/Aisa of insignificance is for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); like in the following: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa/itna (greatly insignificant baaz quantity) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” And this would mean that Shaykh Naumani deliberately lowered the great prophetic knowledge to negate speciality even when he knew it wasn’t the case. And this is worse for Shaykh Thanvi and worst Taweel for Shayh Naumani. Conclusion: In statement of Shaykh Thanvi Aisa is used for Tashbeeh and if Taweel of Aisa is made to mean Itna then Itna is also of Tashbeeh. Takhsees of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is being negated hence comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) via Aisa/Itna is fundamental for it. And this Tashbeeh is clearly being made linguistically. In the statement Itna is of equality in quantity; be that equality in insignificant quantity of baaz or great quantity of baaz. Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi all believe, if in statement of Shaykh Thanvi, there was equality in quantity then it would be Kufr. And this precisely has been established. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. FootNotes: - [1] Urdu: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.” Means: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is so powerful. Or it can mean: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is so-much powerful. - [!] Means: ‘God is aisa (i.e. this-much) all-mighty powerful.’ - [2] Ad means half and mowa means death. Therefore literally it means: Struck so-much that (he put him) in half death state. It can mean: Struck him so-much that nearly killed him. And means: Struck in like-this that nearly killed him. It can also mean: Beat up so-much mean knocked him unconcious, or paralysed. Note meanings are derived from what the word ad-mowa can referr to. - [3] It roughly means: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so-much delicate and blemish-less.’ Better rendering of it in English would be: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so delicate and blemish-less.’ - [4] ’Teen marble Thanvi kay pass heh aur itna marble tumaray pass heh.’ It means: ‘Thanvi owns three marbles and this-much marble are yours also.’ It was pointed out; Sajid Khan has weak Urdu and he used Itna but he should have used Itnay plural to denote more then one marble. Weak Urdu story was invented so Itna fits into Shaykh Naumani’s Itna. Itna to Itnay, single to plural, would not have changed the verdict of quantitive equality. [5] Itnay is plural, if the item discussed was single item, then itna would be used but item was more then one hence Itna. - [6] Statement: ‘Mein jhoot nahin bolta, mera ihtibar keren, Shaykh Dehalvi kay pass teen Zagh e maroofan heh, itna hi panch mein nay apnay pass rakha heh.’ Means: ‘I am not lieing, trust me, Shaykh Dehalvi is in possession of three crows, as-much (as him) I have kept five for my self.’ - [7] Statement: ‘Mein nay kab kaha meray pass teen crow hen. Mein nay toh itna kaha heh, aur itna toh size wasteh istimal hota heh; mein nay itna bara Aamb khaya.’ Means: ‘When did I say I have three crows. I used Itna and Itna is used for size; I ate this-much big mango.’ - [8] To easily access the poetical verse read it: Jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf us bada-kash ka. Moj e Sharab ka zana par ghuman hey. - [9] Translation: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is so-much poweful; He created all the universe and all life in it. And idol is so-much powerless that it can’t even creat a fly infact if she snaches something from it that it is so-much helpless it cannot bring it back. - [10] “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited of knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb […] meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.]

Updated. Various Interpretations Of Hifz ul-Iman’s And Implications Of These Interpretations. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman in which he insulted/disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by comparing knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to knolwedge of regular Joe’s knowledge along side of infants, lunatics, quadrapeds and carnivores. Scholars of Islam requested and pleaded him to repeal the statement from Hifz ul-Iman and repent but instead he indirectly encouraged his supporters to defend him and make excuses on his behalf. This article will briefly address their efforts and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits me each of his supporter will receive a due response in time. This is just the beginning greater plans to unravel. Insha Allah. Literal Translation Of Statement From Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Aisa/Like In Meaning Of Quantity: Typically Deobandis, such as Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Chandpuri, Shaykh Manzoor Nomani, argued; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement aisa/like-this is to be understood in meaning of itna (i.e. this much) is-qadr (i.e. this-quantity), yeh (i.e. this) and it was not used comparatively. According to this Taweel (i.e. interpretation) the statement of Shaykh Thanvi would read: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna (i.e. this-much) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] This is no less offensive because if the statement is understood in context of itna, is-qadr, then the quantity of Ghayb of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being equaled to qauntity of every day Joe’s knowledge of Ghayb along side infants, mad-man, every animal quadrapeds, and carnivores. Aisa/Like In Sense Of Comparision/Tashbeeh: In opposition to both of the above another Deobandi scholar; Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani argued aisa/like-this is used comparatively if it was in meaning of itna (i.e. this much) then it would be offensive. According to him aisa/like-this was used for sake of comparison (i.e. tashbeeh). If the statement is in this meaning then it is to be understood like: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); comparatively aisa (i.e. like-this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In this sense the statement means; Ghayb knowledge like [ba-wasta, transltd; via means][1] in comparison to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed by Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrapeds and carnivores. Implications Of Aisa In Meaning Of Itna And Tashbeeh: Implication of first is; quantity of prophetic knowledge is same as the mentioned in list. People in wordly knowledge aren’t even equale but Shaykh Thanvi made prophetic knowledge equal to the mentioned in list. And not wordly knowledge, but in knowledge of Ghayb, every bit of which establishes speciality of a Prophet. Not only he attributed to them knowledge of Ghayb he attributed equality to them if aisa is in meaning of itna. Implication of second is; the type of prophetic knowledge which suppose to be unique to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not unique to him but the mentioned also share it with him there for he’s not unique/special. And this is Kufr on three accounts; i) comparing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to the mentioned which includes detestables, ii) negating speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) iii) and negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Ghayb knowledge is special to every Prophet and to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as well and it is inclusive of Wahi. To say it is not special but others share is to negate the very purpose of his Prophet-hood. Conclusion: If aisa/like-this is interpreted to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much, this-quantity) then knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being equaled to knowledge of mentioned and implication is that he is no different from knowledge of mentioned in quantity. If statement is interpreted in context of – tashbeeh – then it is comparing the knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with the mentioned and pointing out that he is no different to mentioned due to his knowledge. However the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is interpreted in both statements his knowledge is being compared to the mentioned. In the first case – itna/is-qadr – comparison is implied and knowledge is clearly equaled to mentioned. In the second case – aisa/like – being for TASHBEEH the comparison is obvious in types of Ghuyub. However one roles the dice insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be removed from statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi - [1] “Shar’ri application of mutliq Ghayb (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of comprehension. On this (stated) foundation it has stated: "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means (i.e. ba-wasta) on this [type of knowledge] application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here].

Updated. Shaykh Madani’s Explanation Of Hifz ul-Iman: Comparision Is In Category Of Limitedness Not In Quantity Of Limited Knolwedge. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a major scholar of Deobandism in his Hifz ul-Iman wrote something which no believer would find acceptable. Ever since it was penned Shaykh Thanvi himself and his supporters have sort to explain away the obvious insult/disrespect directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Out of many Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, a major Deobandi scholar wrote to defend Shaykh Thanvi and published Al-Shihab as-Saqib, best described as Gali Nama (i.e. master piece of abuse). 0.0 - Islamic Belief Regarding Ilm al-Ghayb Of Prophet: Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted Baaz from knowledge of Ghayb. In words of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala); Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is a drop from limitless ocean of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge. And despite this his knowledge of Ghayb is unique and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is special in his knowledge of Ghayb. 0.1 - Glimpse Of Types Of Ghuyubs Known To RasoolAllah: It is unique because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed him paradise and hell. He saw the grapes of paradise and saw parts of hell destroying each other. He saw Amr bin Luhai in hell and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told he started the Sunnah of freeing animals in the name of idol gods.[1] Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold; Syria, Iraq, and Yemen will be conquered by Muslims and Muslims will leave Madinah.[2] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the companions; he can see them behind him just like he can see them when they are infront of him. Nor their concentration in prayer and nor was their bowing is hidden from him.[3] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed about two people being tortured in the graves when he passed by them. And this is report of Ghayb relating to present. He told they are not being punished for minor sins. One being punished for backbiting and other for not being careful and allowing urine drops to soil his clothes. Note he knew their sins of past due to which they were being punished.[4] And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was shown his entire Ummah and the good and bad deeds of his entire nation during his life time.[5] Just from a glimpse it becomes evident prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is unique. And there is no regular Joe, or infant, or lunatic, or animal, or insect with such knowledge of Ghayb. 0.2 - Quantity Of Ghuyub Known To RasoolAllah: Good and bad actions of Ummah were shown to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) during his life time and are presented to him after his passing away.[6] Consider the billions of Muslims and this should tell a Muslim the amount of Ghuyub is known by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also Ahadith establish everything was revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) placed knowledge in chest of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[7] And therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told everything from beginning of creation till entry of people to paradise/hell.[8] And this was because Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was witnessing all that is happening.[9] 1.0 - Actual Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi In Discussion: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 1.1 - Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s Taweel: Shaykh Madani argued in defence of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi; he compared some baaz (i.e. limited/some) with baaz and not quantity of baaz knowledge. In context of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement his explanation would be reflected as follows: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In other words Shaykh Madani is saying; instead of comparing the quantity of baaz knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with baaz quantity of mentioned creations; Shaykh Thanvi just compared baaz knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with baaz knowledge of mentioned creations without comparing great quantity of prophetic knowledge with minute knowledge of others. 1.2 – The Right Questions And the Important Answer: Question arises what would be the outcome if this interpretation of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad is right and believed? And what does it mean regarding character of Shaykh Thanvi if this interpretation is true? Would Shaykh Madani earn a badge of honor and Shaykh Thanvi go free of blame of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Lets begin with telling you; don’t have your hopes too high about Shaykh Madani’s scholarships and definitely not his smarts (i.e. intelligence). 1.3 - Shaykh Madani’s Taweel In Hifz ul-Iman: Note words in green are not part of original TEXT but are inserted to convey interpretation of Shaykh Madani. In light of Shaykh Madani’s Taweel the statement will be read: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Even though the natural meaning conveys comparision between Baaz quantity of prophetic Ghayb and Baaz Ghayb of creations he mentioned; please ignore it. Just pretend and go along; Shaykh Madani was correct in his understanding. 1.4 - Shaykh Madani’s Taweel And Its Application On Shaykh Thanvi: As per interpretation of Shaykh Madani the implications are; Shaykh Thanvi wants to negate uniquesness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb by comparing category of Baaz with Baaz. Without getting into detail of how much each Baaz translates to for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and for mentioned creations. And without comparing the type of knowledge of Ghayb which is established for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The following demonstrates what Shaykh Madani is saying: If it is some knowledge then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s some knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is known to every idiot, dumb mummal, Kafir, and even Fir’awn had some knowledge. Or if someone wants to negate uniqueness of Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge by saying: What is so unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s limited knowledge of Islam even infants possess limited knowledge of Islam. Please note quantity of limited/some isn’t being compared but just the Nafs (i.e. being, or word) of Baaz (i.e. limited, some) is compared. Question; Is this fair way of determining uniqueness of Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge? 2.0 - Response To Argument: Compared In Limitedness Not In Quantity: Shaykh Madani’s argument is; Shaykh Thanvi compared limited knowledge without making, directly or indirectly, the quantity of limited knowledge part of his statement found in Hifz ul-Iman. Shaykh Madani either lacked the smarts (i.e. intelligence) or was just being typical Deobandi. And my accessment is smarts was not his problem but his love/respect of Shaykh Thanvi exceded the love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Because even those who have spent two years in Madrassa will be able to tell you speciality and uniqueness cannot be established and cannot be negated without inserting quantity, type and quality of knowledge into equation. If Shaykh Thanvi had not questioned the speciality/uniqueness and had not compared prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with lunatics, infants, animals, Zaid, Amr and not negated speciality of prophetic knowledge: Then quantity argument of Shaykh Madani would have been valid. 2.1 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Equality In Limited Knowledge Established: If Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was without aisa (i.e. like-this) and following part of sentence was omitted: “… in this what is so unique about Hadhoor …”. Then it would have been worded in following way: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended then in this; what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” It would have been acceptable and Shaykh Madani’s point would have been valid that Tashbeeh is in Nafs (i.e. category) of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz. But Shaykh Thanvi questioned uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and compared it with; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds and infants in limitedness of Ghayb. And all this to negate speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his prophetic knowledge. To determine or to negate speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge Shaykh Thanvi had to compare the quantity etc. If he believed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was far greater then Zaid, Amr, lunatics, infants, animals then there would be speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and and he would have automatically come to conclusion that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi denied speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and that can only be it if he considered/believed the prophetic knowledge to be equal to mentioned creations: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …”Al-Hasil -: Equality in quantity, type and quality of knowledge is indirectly was implied by Shaykh Thanvi to come to his conclusion. If he had not implied equality into his text his conclusion could not have been against speciality but pro-speciality/uniqueness. The principle of determining speciality/uniqueness in knowledge and Shaykh Thanvi’s conclusion is source of equality in quantity argument. 3.0 - Moral Question And Principle Of Establishing Uniqueness: To establish uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb it is wrong to compare his superior knowledge with knowledge of inferiors. The correct method is to compare lowers knowledge with superiors knowledge. In other words to establish uniqueness one should not do as follow; infant knows Tajweed and Shaykh Thanvi knows Tajweed therefore Shaykh Thanvi is not special. The right course of action is that; Shaykh Thanvi knows, Tajweed, Tafsir, Hadith, Arabic, rules of Sarf and Nawh etc. The child only knows Tajweed but due to all other knowledge Shaykh Thanvi is unique in his knowledge. In other words uniquesness in knowledge is determined by quantity of knoweldge and type of knowledge and not through word play; category of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb vs category Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. The speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is established by type of Ghuyub he knows and quantity of these Ghuyub and quality of these Ghuyub. 3.1 - Blame On Shaykh Thanvi Through Interpretation Of Shaykh Madani: It is obvious uniquesness/speciality of one individual’s knowledge over another is established through the type of Ghuyub known to him and quantity of Ghuyub. What type of person would use such under handed tactic to negate speciality/uniqueness Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghyb knowledge over insignifcants mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi? What I mean is you need to consider: What kind of Iblees would not use quantity and type knowledge to determine uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over lunatics, infants, animals, and quadrupeds: A person who loves and respects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or Shaytaan al-Laheen who deliberately wants to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using this under-handed tactic? And suppose Shaykh Madani wrongly understood the intent of Shaykh Thanvi then just imagine what kind of Iblees would understand the statement in such a way and consider it acceptable? A righteous believer or cursed Iblees? I leave the judgment for the readers. 3.2 - Equating Prophetic Knowledge With Knowledge Of Insignificants: According to Shaykh Madani; Shaykh Thanvi compares baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with baaz knowledge of Ghayb of infants and lunatics. It is true having baaz knowledge of Ghayb is not unique but the type and quantity Ghayb knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted is unique to Prophets and especially to him. Knowledge of Quran/Wahi was Ghayb and was unique to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Which infant, or lunatic, or animal, or regular Joe shared any part of it without his delivering it? And some evidence relating to this was already presented. Using Shaykh Madani’s logic if someone says; what is so unique about face of Shaykh Thanvi; face like of this even is possed by Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, pigs, dogs, and donkeys. Expectedly Deobandi’s would be upset and accuse me of following the Sunnah of Shaykh Madani. But my defence would be in accordance with logic of Shaykh Madani: I merely compared Nafs of face with faces of mentioned and not type of faces; therefore no insult was meant because having face is not unique. Natural implication of which is that Shaykh Thanvi’s face is like the faces of mentioned. Rest assured none of them will buy tolerate or accept this Taweel because one of their own is being insulted. But Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insulted their hearts don’t even percieve it and they preferr distortions of their scholars over what they know to be truth. Conclusion: To begin with; to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to argue there is no uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over the insignicants mentioned is disrespectful. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman if judged in light of Shaykh Madani’s Taweel then Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of employing unwarranted methodology of underminding merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. And a Muslim can imagine what type of person would go to such length as to compare Baaz without comparing quanity of Baaz Ghayb knowledge of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with animals, infants, and lunatics! All this so he can establish there is nothing special about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knolwedge: A righteous believer who loves/respects Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or a disgusting Kafir impersonating to be Muslim; with no love/respect for the Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guides whom He wills. Wama alayna ilal balalghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] “Narrated Aisha: Once the sun eclipsed and Allah's Messenger stood up for the prayer and recited a very long Sura and when bowed for a long while and then raised his head and started reciting another Sura. Then he bowed, and after finishing, he prostrated and did the same in the second rak`a and then said, "These (lunar and solar eclipses) are two of the signs of Allah and if you see them, pray till the eclipse is over. No doubt, while standing at this place I saw everything promised to me by Allah and I saw (Paradise) and I wanted to pluck a bunch (of grapes) therefrom, at the time when you saw me stepping forward. No doubt, I saw Hell with its different parts destroying each other when you saw me retreating and in it I saw `Amr bin Luhai who started the tradition of freeing animals (set them free) in the name of idols." [Ref: Bukhari, B22, H303] - [2]“Sufyan b. Abd Zuhair reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Syria will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels. and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Yemen will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Iraq will be conquered and some people will go out of it along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3200] - [3] "It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet used to say: "Make your rows straight, make your rows straight, make your rows straight. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I can see you behind me as I can see you in front of me." [Ref: Nisai, B10, H814] "It was narrated from Anas that: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Bow and prostrate properly, for by Allah I can see you from behind my back when you bow and prostrate.'" [Ref: Nisai, B12, H1118] "Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ( may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Do you see the direction I am facing here? By Allah, neither your concentration nor your ruku is hidden from me. I can see you behind my back." [Ref: Muwatta.I.Malik, B9, H73] - [4] "Bahr bin Marrar narrated that his grandfather Abu Bakrah said: "The Messenger of Allah passed by two graves, and he said: 'They are being punished but they are not being punished for anything major. One of them is being punished because of urine, and the other is being punished because of backbiting.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H349] “Narrated Ibn Abbas:Once the Prophet went through the grave-yards of Medina and heard the voices of two humans who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, "They are being punished, but they are not being punished because of a major sin, yet their sins are great. One of them used not to save himself from (being soiled with) the urine, and the other used to go about with calumnies (Namima)." Then the Prophet asked for a green palm tree leaf and split it into two pieces and placed one piece on each grave, saying, "I hope that their punishment may be abated as long as these pieces of the leaf are not dried." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H81] - [5] “It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] - [6] “It was narrated from Abu Dhār that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] “Narrated Sulayman bin Harb, Hammad bin Zaid, Ghalib al Qattan, Bakr bin Abdullah al-Muzani: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: My life is good for you [because] Hadith are narrated for you and you narrate them. When I die then in my death there is good for you [because] your actions are presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah and if I see otherwise I will seek forgive for you from Allah.” [Ref: Khasa’is Ul Kubra, Imam Suyuti, pages 391/392.] - [7] "Narrated Abdur Rahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed His palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3245, Tafsir Surah Sad] "Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3246, Tafsir Surah Sad] - [8] “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] “Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence). Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] - [9] "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi]

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

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

Updated. Implications Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Baaz And Ba-wasta Categorisation On Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman. Introduction: Questioner enquired from Shaykh Thanvi about one who believes RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. knower of Ghayb) and believes knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is ba-wasta (i.e. through means). While responding to the questioner Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a founding father of Deobandism made a very distasteful and disrespectful statement about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghayb knowledge. In order to negate the uniqueness of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he compared the knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with knowledge of Ghayb of; infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds, Zaid and Amr. Effort will be made to make clear the sort of Ghuyub inclusive of ba-wasta/baaz and how they effect the meaning of his already offensive statement. Relevent Statements Of Hifz ul-Iman: “A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Knowledge of Ghayb is bil-Zaat , in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb. And ba-wasta (i.e. bil-Ardh, with means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] “Shar’ri application of Mutliq Ghayb (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of comprehension. On this [stated] foundation it has been stated (in Quran): "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means (i.e. ba-wasta) on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here] “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Termonologies Employed And How They Are In Agreement: Bil-Zaat (بالذات, i.e. of Self) is opposite of Bil-A’rdh (بالعرض, i.e. through means). Bil-Zaat is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Bil-A’rdh is for creation. Bila-Wasta (بلاوسطہ , i.e. without means) is opposite of Ba-wasta (بواسطہ , i.e. with means). Bila-Wasta is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Ba-wasta is for creation. Mutliq (مطلق , i.e. boundless/limitless) is opposite of Muqayyid (مقيد , i.e. restricted). Mutliq is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Muqayyid is for His creation. Baaz (بعض, i.e. partial, some) is opposite of Qull (کل, i.e. all, every). Termonologies Used For Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) And His Creation: The terminologies of; bil-Zaat, bila-Wasta, Qull and Mutliq are for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and following are used for creation including RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); bil-Ardh, bil-Wasta, Baaz, and Muqayyid. Scholarly Practice One From Set Is Entire Set In Context Of Tawheed: By employing one or another scholars tend to indicate entire set. So even though Shaykh Thanvi and questioner used different terminologies both are actually referring to same Ghayb. Precision Nazi’s should note questioner mentioned, بواسطہ, and, بالذات. Shaykh used, بواسطہ, and, مطلق. And in the problematic statement he used, بعض. Questioner and Shaykh used Ba-wasta and Shaykh in problematic statement used Baaz for knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In light of this both Baaz and Ba-wasta will be inserted into context. The word difference of Ba-wasta and Baaz means has no real significance because both referr to same knowledge of Ghayb and it will be established ahead. Detail Of Ba-wasta Type Of Ghayb: Ba-wasta means, through means, via means, and such knowledge of Ghayb can be gained through supernatural sight and hearing, and be informed by another. In detail of ba-wasta it is important to point out that there are three main types of ba-wasta type of Ghuyub: i) Akhbar e Ghayb (i.e. news of Ghayb), ii) Mushayda e Ghayb (i.e. seeing of Ghayb), iii) Sama’at e Ghayb (i.e. hearing of Ghayb). Note all knowledge of Ghayb is ba-Atah (i.e. with granting) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) including ba-wasta (i.e. with means) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants through means of His choosing. In the next section each type of Ghayb will be briefly explained with its evidences. News Of Ghayb: There are verses of Quran which clearly and emphatically state Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) received news of Ghayb: “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” [Ref: 3:44] “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you, you knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this. So be patient; indeed, the (best) outcome is for the righteous.” [Ref: 11:49] “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they put together their plan while they conspired.” [Ref: 12:102] Yet the foremost evidence for this type of Ghayb is Quran because entire Quran is news/report from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Say, "I do not know if what you are promised is near or if my Lord will grant for it a (long) period." (25) (He is) Knower of the Ghayb (i.e. hidden), and He does not disclose His (knowledge of the) Ghayb to anyone.(26) Except whom He has approved as Messengers, and indeed, He sends before each Messenger and behind him observers.(27) That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.”(28) [Ref:72:25/27] There are two interpretationf of these verses.[1] If verse 26 is understood in context of verse 26, 27, and 28, then Ghayb is Quran. And interpretation is: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the knower of Ghayb (i.e. Aalim ul-Ghayb) grants knowledge of Ghayb to Messengers and accompanies them with angels so Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows that the Prophets convey the Message of Ghayb,Wahi/revelation, Quran in context of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also another verse which reffers to revelation/Wahi, which eventually resulted in Quran, hence establishing Quran is part of Ghuyub known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Nor would Allah reveal to you the unseen. But (instead), Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers. And if you believe and fear Him, then for you is a great reward.” [Ref: 3:179] Also Ahadith record Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold everything to take place till the day of judgment: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] “Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence). Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] This is one of the miracles of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). These two Ahadith establish the amount of knowledge of Ghayb RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possessed. Seeing Of Ghayb: While Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was leading companions in prayers he saw paradise and the grapes in it and saw hell and Amr bin Luhai in it: “These (lunar and solar eclipses) are two of the signs of Allah and if you see them, pray till the eclipse is over. No doubt, while standing at this place I saw everything promised to me by Allah and I saw (Paradise) and I wanted to pluck a bunch (of grapes) therefrom, at the time when you saw me stepping forward. No doubt, I saw Hell with its different parts destroying each other when you saw me retreating and in it I saw `Amr bin Luhai who started the tradition of freeing animals (set them free) in the name of idols." [Ref: Bukhari, B22, H303] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw behind him as he saw with his eyes and sincerity of peoples hearts was not concealed from him as the following Ahadith establish: "It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet used to say: "Make your rows straight, make your rows straight, make your rows straight. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I can see you behind me as I can see you in front of me." [Ref: Nisai, B10, H814] "It was narrated from Anas that: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Bow and prostrate properly, for by Allah I can see you from behind my back when you bow and prostrate.'" [Ref: Nisai, B12, H1118] "Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ( may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Do you see the direction I am facing here? By Allah, neither your concentration nor your ruku is hidden from me. I can see you behind my back." [Ref: Muwatta.I.Malik, B9, H73] Other Ahadith establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was shown good/bad deeds of his entire Ummah during his life time and he will be shown the good/bad deeds of his Ummah after his deparths from earthly life: “It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] “Narrated Sulayman bin Harb, Hammad bin Zaid, Ghalib al Qattan, Bakr bin Abdullah al-Muzani: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: My life is good for you [because] Hadith are narrated for you and you narrate them. When I die then in my death there is good for you [because] your actions are presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah and if I see otherwise I will seek forgive for you from Allah.” [Ref: Khasa’is Ul Kubra, Imam Suyuti, pages 391/392.] He also saw everything to take place on earth till day of judgment established from following Hadith: "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] Hearing Of Ghayb It is recorded in Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) heard the screams of people being tortured in the graves: “Narrated Ibn Abbas:Once the Prophet went through the grave-yards of Medina and heard the voices of two humans who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, "They are being punished, but they are not being punished because of a major sin, yet their sins are great. One of them used not to save himself from (being soiled with) the urine, and the other used to go about with calumnies (Namima)." Then the Prophet asked for a green palm tree leaf and split it into two pieces and placed one piece on each grave, saying, "I hope that their punishment may be abated as long as these pieces of the leaf are not dried." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H81] “Narrated Abi Aiyub: Once the Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice and said, "The Jews are being punished in their graves.” [Ref: Bukhari, B23, H457] “Anas b. Malik said: The Messenger of Allah entered the garden of the palm trees of Banu al-Najjar. He heard a voice and was terrified. He asked: Who are the people buried in these graves? The people replied: Messenger of Allah! These are some people who died in the pre-Islamic times. He said: Seek refuge in Allah from the punishment of the fire, and the trail of Antichrist. They asked: Why is it that, Messenger of Allah? He said: When a man is …” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B41, H4733] In another Hadith it is recorded Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions heard a loud bang noise and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained it is sound of a stone falling bottom of hell: “Abu Huraira reported: We were in the company of Allah's Messenger that we heard a terrible sound. Thereupon Allah's Apostle said: Do you know what (sound) is this? We said: Allah and His Messenger know best. Thereupon he said: That is a stone which was thrown seventy years before in Hell and it has'been constantly slipping down and now it has reached its base.” [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6813] Note sound of stone falling into Hell was heard by companions also because companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed with their ears a miracle of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Seeing And Hearing All Happenings In Universe By Prophet Of Allah: In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Messenger of Allah said:“I see what you do not see, and I hear what you do not hear. The heaven is creaking and it should creak, for there is no space in it the width of four fingers but there is an angel there, prostrating to Allah. By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh little and weep much, and you would never enjoy women in your beds, and you would go out in the streets, beseeching Allah.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4330] And same is reported in another Hadith of Tirmadhi: "Abu Dharr narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "Indeed I see what you do not see, and I hear what you do not hear. The Heavens creak, and they have the right to creak. There is no spot, the size of four fingers in them, except that there is an angel placing his forehead in it, prostrating to Allah. By Allah! If you knew what I know, then you would laugh little and you would cry much. And you would not taste the pleasures of your women in the beds, and you would go out beseeching Allah." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B10, H2312] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described what he saw by saying there isn’t a even four-finger gap on which the angels don’t prostrate and informed about the creaking of space. This is indication of how much Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) saw and heard. Ghayb Knowledge Implication Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: Shaykh Thanvi’s writtenstatement in light of Baaz and Ba-wasta would read like this: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from (ba-wasta) knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; (ba-wasta) knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds and carnivores because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] The baaz/ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb established in previous sections how does it not make Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his prophetic knowledge unique? And which lunatic, insect, cow, goat, donkey, pig, Amr, buffalo shares with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) all this knowledge of Ghayb? This much and countless more knowledge of Ghayb being known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) proves that he is unique. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having so much of ba-wasta and baaz Ghayb is his uniquesness and to negate his speciality/uniqueness of in baaz/ba-wasta Ghayb by equating his knowledge with lunatics, infants animals is Kufr: “… if baaz ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); ba-wasta Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Explanation Of Islamic Position With Examples And Their Objectives: When ever someone esteemed is compared with inferior in order to negate a merit then insult is intended. If one says: You’re not slim in fact you’re fat like a pig. He may say I intended to say you’re fat but every sane person would take offence for two reasons being called fat and being equated to pig in fatness. Similarly Shaykh Thanvi’s first offense is that he negated merit of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and second is that he did so by equating him through prophetic knowledge to knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, infants, and animals. Also considering what the Ghuyub are; especially knowledge of Wahi/Quran, it is disrespect of Quran/Wahi; to say even lunatics, infants, animals … possess such baaz knowledge of Ghayb. And worse it would mean that lunatics, infants, animals and every day idiots can receive Wahi because it is part of baaz/ba-wasta Ghuyub. Conclusion: Baaz and Ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and the quantity and the types of Ghuyun known to him establishes his uniqueness/speciality in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And therefore to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prophetic knowledge with knowledge of lunatics, infants, animals and common folk is to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Being equated to animals, lunatics and infants implies being infant, lunatic, animal in knowledge and or no better then them in knowledge. None would take this to be words of endearment. And to think for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this would be acceptable/excusable is only dream and wishful thinking of disbelievers. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] And if verse 26 is understood in the context of verse 25 and 27 then Ghayb referred is knowledge of judgment day and meaning is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not share it with anyone other then chosen Messengers. Implications would be that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sends four gardian angels with Jibraeel (alayhis salam) so no one steals knowledge from him and that he delivers it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Updated. Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement In Sense Of Tashbeeh And Equality In Quantity Of Knowledge. Introduction: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) alleged Shaykh Thanvi equalled Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb of; Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. A righteous Muslim would have seriously considered the allegation and thought about all angles and upon being informed would have repented. Shaykh Thanvi had other plans he decided to defend his statement. And seeing their Shaykh in battle the minions of Iblees joined and made excuses for their master. Some said Shaykh Thanvi never wrote this statement of Hifz ul-Iman[1] but when they were confronted with truth they had no answer but to run to Thana Bhawan. Others took the course of Taweel (i.e. re-interpreting) of obvious in order to blunt the charge of insult/disrespect. There were two main proponents of Taweel movement apart from Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Madani and his student Shaykh Naumani. Note Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan laid the foundation of Taweel of both parties. Result was Shaykh Madani claimed there is tashbeeh in statement of Shaykh Thanvi if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would be problematic. Shaykh Naumani said statement is not in sense of tashbeeh because aisa is used to mean itna. If it was tashbeeh it would be Kufr. And all parties agreed that there is no mention of equality in quantity by Shaykh Thanvi in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. This article will address two points, denial of tashbeeh, and denial of equality in quantity. Effort will be made to establish equality and tashbeeh. 1.0 - Controversial Statement And Shaykh Negates Equality In Quantity: Following is portion of Hifz ul-Iman in which Shaykh Thanvi attempted to rightly/justly refute notion that title Aalim ul-Ghayb can be applied upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he knows Ghayb but the tone and language used was insulting/disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In his following pamphlet size booklet some 10 years later Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Thanvi regarding the statement of Hifz ul-Iman states in his two page pamphlet published as Bast al-Banan hints; he deems the prophetic and knowledge of those whom he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman to be baaz (i.e. limited) but different in quantity. 1.1 - Shaykh Madani Confirms Tashbeeh But Negates Equality In Quantity: Shaykh Madani taking que from his beloved Shaykh Thanvi writes: “Honorable people! Matter discussed (of Hifz ul-Iman) was if it is correct to use for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the title of Aalim ul-Ghayb or not. Knowledge and quantity of prophetic knowledge was not being discussed (in Hifz ul-Iman). You should read the statement of Shaykh Thanvi from beginning to end; in it he is arguing the usage of this phrase (Aalim ul-Ghayb) for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not right/legal.” Shaykh Madani continues to write: “In it he is not discussion if he (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb of any kind or not; and if there is then how much of Ghayb does he know. Every intelligent person understands the difference between establishing a belief and application of word (as title) details of which will be mentioned ahead. Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much).” Purpose of negating discussion of quantity is to negate the notion that prophetic quantity was equalled with what Shaykh Thanvi mentioned in list of beings. Shaykh Madani continues: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Note Shaykh Madani says quantity of prophet knowledge was not discussed in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And says if itna was used instead of aisa then equality in quantity would be established and it would have been valid reason for objection because then prophetic knowledge would be equalled in quantity to; lunatics, infants, animals and every day Joe’s. In his next statement he explicitly negates/rejects the notion that there is tashbeeh in quantity in Hifz ul-Imans controversial statement: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] In another part of books he writes: “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] Alhasil -: In understanding of Shaykh Madani the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is comparative (i.e. of tashbeeh) in nature. And the comparision is in category of limited knowledge not in quantity of limited knowledge. Note he explicitly negated the notion that Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman compares quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. 1.2 - Shaykh Naumani Negates Tashbeeh And It Is In Quantitive Sense Of Itna: Shaykh Naumani considers aisa (i.e. like-this) in meaning of itna (i.e. thi-much). According to Shaykh Madani if it was itna then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would establishe equality in quantity (see pages 281/282, above) which is an apparent contradiction. Ignoring this contradiction of liars; who really are senselessly scrambling to cover up with their lies and deception the obvious Kufr. Shaykh Naumani like Shaykh Madani he too believes itna is without establishing equality between quantity: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] In another part he is quoted to have said: “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).”[2] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] In the following statement Shaykh Naumani explicitly stated that Shaykh Thanvi in his Hifz ul-Iman did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb: “In this turn you again read (aloud) statement of Hifz ul-Iman and you have claimed regarding it what you have claimed about it since yesterday. I have given quite detailed and clear response to it and you should remember/recall it. This time I will briefly say another thing about it. Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Alhasil Shaykh Naumani to believes itna refers to baaz and prophetic knowledge of baaz is not being compared with baaz knowledge of individuals mentioned in his statement. 2.0 - Shaykhs; Thanvi, Naumani, And Madani Negate Equality In Quantity: In short it is clear that all three are unanimous in their understanding that quantity of limited prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was not part of the discussion nor Shaykh Thanvi intended to discuss the quantity. Shaykh Madani is of view; Shaykh Thanvi compared the prophetic knowledge in Baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) with knowledge of regular Joe’s, infants, animals, lunatics. And he did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge with quantity of knowledge possessed by regular Joe’s, lunatics, infants, animals and quadrupeds. Shaykh Naumani on other hand disagrees with his teacher Shaykh Madani and says; there is no comparision in quantity because the word aisa (i.e. like-this) is used in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) and it is used without denoting quantity. 2.1 Technicalities And Pointlessness And Senselessness Of Shuyukh Of Deoband: Considering both positions in light of that is all logical and rational and intelligent; it has to be said Shaykh Madani has got the right general idea but stupidly negates aisa meaning itna which his position naturally implies. Also Shaykh Naumani is barking up the wrong tree by saying itna is without tashbeeh: If hint of aisa/itna is returning to baaz then Shaykh Thanvi has to compare the prophetic knowledge with regular Joe’s, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds to negate speciality which he did in his statement. In simple words comparision to negate speciality/uniqueness equals = tashbeeh. Shaykh Madani on other hand has the general concept right but was reluctant to accept aisa is used in meaning of itna. If Shaykh Madani had said: ‘Aisa is for tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and tashbeeh of aisa is with generality of baaz not quantity of baaz and therefore appropriate alternative from linguistic sense for aisa would be itna.’ He could have perfectly held the same position which he mentioned by incorporating part of Shaykh Naumani’s position into his own. He could have but there was little angel in his subconcious saying Shaykh Thanvi’s statement insulting/disrespectfull. Somehow Shaykh Madani managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity of baaz and this prevented him from taking natural mentioned route. Coming to Shaykh Naumani; if Shaykh Naumani had said the following then his he would have had better ground: ‘Aisa is in meaning of itna due to linguistic usage of aisa in meaning of itna. And aisa/itna is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) between baaz without comparing quantity of prophetic knowledge and mentioned others.’ These Shuyukh could have argued their case and held to same positions but the difference would be that both wouldn’t have contradicted each other. Surprisingly both felt Shaykh Thanvi’s statement would be Kufr if it was understood in meaning which other out of two suggested. 2.3 - Two Insults In One Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi: Instead of both taking the voices of their concious and agreeing with them both decided to stab their angels to death with the fork of red little Satan. And thought if they supress their concious and say it is not in this meaning and say it is in that meaning then the Kufr would be lifted from Shaykh Thanvi. The offense in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is two fold: i) Shaykh Thanvi negated/rejected the notion that prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special/unique but it is like the lunatics, animals, infants, every day Joe’s and quadrupeds. ii) Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is actually implying prophetic knowledge is equal to the mentioned relatives of Shaykh Thanvi in quantity and quality. Both of these Shuyukh have focused their Taweelat to negate the first charge. It is worth noting that both these Shuyukh have not managed to successfully defend against the first charge. The first charge is naturally and fundamentally part of second charge and if second charge is established then naturally the first charge would be established. 2.4 - Playing Chicken With Kufr And Not Realising After Squished By It: Regardless of how these Shuyukh could have played the defending game; with itna refering to baaz and without tashbeeh in quantity of prophetic knowledge, or aisa referring to baaz and tashbeeh; comparision in general quantity of baaz but not with specific prophetic quantity of baaz. Or even if they had played chicken with Kufr with one of above Taweels presented by me in 2.1; even then nothing would make their defence of Shaykh Thanvi impregnable. The offense they attempted to lift was beyond their comprehension. They thought with word games we will win the battle against Muslims. Little did they know they can put yeh (i.e. this), or itna and is-qadr (i.e. this-much), and negate or affirm Tashbeeh in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi and play whatever Ibleesi game they wish. As long as Takhseesi statement (i.e. what is so unique about Hadhoor’s sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam knowledge of Ghayb) remains in statement of Shaykh Thanvi the Tashbeeh cannot be negated and equality argument against Hifz ul-Iman cannot be negated. Please read the following part of article carefully it will lay bare all deceptions these Shuyukh have attempted to defend Shaykh Thanvi by dealing with the dispute in most fundamental fashion; by evaluating their arguments in light of basic facts which no rational or sane human could object to. 3.0 -Principles Of Refuting And Establishing Uniqueness In Knowledge: i) Knowledge of X equals Y. In this context X and Y have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other. ii) X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X. In this context X is unique/special out of two because X has greater knowledge. And Y is not unique/special and has no merit above X. iii) X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y. In this scenario X has a merit and is unique/special due greater quantity and qaulity. 3.1 - Knowledge of X equals Y: The first principle: ‘Knowledge of X equals Y.’ Thanvi knows numbers from one to hundred. Gangohi knows numbers from one to hundred. Both know exactly the same amount of numbers therefore if it was said that Shaykh Thanvi isn’t any better, any special it would be correct. Following example illustrates the point:’If it is correct to attribute knowledge of numbers to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this knowledge of numbers, known to Shaykh Thanvi, limited to one to hundered or is it infinite knowledge of numbers. If it is one to hundered then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge of numbers; knowledge like this is even possesed by everyday Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and Shaykh Gangohi.’ Ofcourse this statement is correct; Shaykh Thanvi would has no merit over the mentioned because quantity of his knowledge is same as the rest. From this example we learn; to negate speciality, or uniquess of knowledge there has to be equality in knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi knows 1-100 and so does his family of lunatics, infants, and Shaykh Gangohi; therefore he is not special in knowing numbers. In this context Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other due to equality in quantity. 3.2 - X Is More Knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X: The second principle states: ‘X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X.’ In this scenario we suppose Shaykh Thanvi had Ghayb knowledge of two or twenty matters of Ghayb found in perserved tablet. And all Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of Ghayb. And it exceeds all that is in perserved Tablet. Readers are advised to referr to Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to get details and evidences of Islamic belief. Please study the following statement: ‘Indeed it is correct to attribute knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And upon investigation it became clear it wasn’t of few matters of Ghayb but of all that is in perserved tablet and greater then it. Hence prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special. And if Shaykh Thanvi has knowledge of few matters of Ghayb then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knolwedge of Ghayb in comparision to prophetic knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is even possesed by every day Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and animals.’ Shaykh Thanvi comparatively isn’t special in his knowledge of Ghayb because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows all that is in perserved tablet and more. Therefore in this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique/special because he has greater knowledge; in fact all of knowledge of perserved tablet. And Shaykh Thanvi is not unique/special and has no merit above Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to lack of quantity of his knowledge. 3.3 - X Has Greater Quantity Of Knowledge And Quality Of Knowledge Then Y: Third principle states: ‘X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y.’ Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is Qati (i.e. definitive). Meaning there can be no element of doubt in his knowledge of Ghayb. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) says; Dajjal will be blind in one eye. Then there can be no doubt regarding it: Dajjal will be blind in his eye. Also prophetic knowledge is beyound human counting: Consists of all knowledge of Ghayb in perserved tablet and even greater. Ghayb knowledge of non-Prophets is Zani (i.e. indefinitive/doubtful) however they gain it. The non-Prophets can only have Qatti (i.e. definitive) Ghayb when it has been given to them by a Nabi/Rasool. And the quantity of Zani Ghayb will never be suffient enough merit a challenge to prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or negate speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Now in this context try to understand statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Now if we insert the established facts into the text of Shaykh Thanvi it means: Prophetic Qatti knolwedge of Ghayb, whose quantity is beyond human comprehension is nothing special in comparision to Zani knowledge of Ghayb lunatics, infants, animals whose knowledge is questionable and minute quantity, that’s if they have Ghayb. So in Deobandism; few lunatics, cows, sheeps, infants, animals, about whom we don’t even know they have knowledge of Ghayb, and whose quantity knowledge is worth of two dimes; have managed to negate the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb whose possession of Ghayb, and quantity, and quality is uncontestable and quantity is inumerable by human mind. Now when the greater quantity of knowledge establishes superiority and merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge then greater quality by default will add to speciality and uniquessness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Therefore in this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a merit and is unique/special due to his quality knowledge and due greater quantity of his knowledge. 3.4 - Fundamental Rule Of Establishing And Negating Speciality: From these three principles and their explanantions we derive a basic rule; X has to be compared to Y quantity/type to establish/negate speciality/uniqueness. If the quantity is equal on both sides then comparision yields result; one has no superiority over the other. If one has less and other has greater then comparisions establishes two results: i) one possessing less quantity of knowledge has no superiority over who has greater quantity of knowledge. ii) And one with greater quantity of knowledge is superior to one with lesser knowledge. Hence in statements like of Hifz ul-Iman comparision is essential to establish and negate merit of one over another: And this comparision is in quantity and is inclusive of types of Ghayb knowledge known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 4.0 - Brief Account Of Shuyukh On Hifz ul-Iman’s Controversial Statement: Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani all stated the quantity of prophetic knowledge isn’t being discussed in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In my own words; Shaykh Naumani said there was no Tashbeeh of prophetic Ghayb with Ghayb of lunatics etc. If it was in meaning of Tashbeeh it would be Kufr. Rather the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna. And itna is used without tashbeeh because aisa/itna referrs to baaz Ghayb and not prophetic baaz Ghayb. Shaykh Madani on other hand said there is tashbeeh in statement and Tashbeeh is in prophetic knowledge being compared to baaz Ghayb knowledge and not quanity of baaz prophetic knowledge with baaz quantity x, y, and z. He also indirectly indicated he would consider statement to beKufr if itna was used. This establishes both contradict each other … both indirectly declared each other Kafir but that’s not the point. But they all negated equality in quantity of knowledge. 4.1 - Speciality And Uniqueness Can Only Be Negated Via Comparision: If you recall Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani are of view that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is without Tashbeeh. Even though their own lap-dop aka Shaykh Madani refutes them but it is still important to address it from principle point of view. If a child says; this is sweeter then that one. Has he compared this choclate with that to come to conclusion? An adult says; there is nothing special about this jumper over that jumper. Did the adult compare, one or other quality, to come to this conclusion? You would agree both these statements are result of comparision. Even though words, like, such, as, aren’t used the comparision can be implied because merit/quality is being negated. And for negation/affirmation of any quality/merit in a statement comparative analysis is essential between two parties either by comparing to something materially or via pre-determined criterias of good/bad learnt through experience and knowledge accomulated over time. In this context if we take statement of Shaykh Thanvi: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In here Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in contrast to; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And for him to reach to this understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special in his knowledge, he had to compare prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this Tashbeeh is of quantity and in types of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In addition to this; Shaykh Thanvi used word aisa (i.e. like this) which is used for Tashbeeh even if it is without jaisa (i.e. like this): “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).”[3] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] And in context of rule; establishing or negating any merit/quality of one over another party requires comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) between qualities/merits of party with another. Therefore aisa has to be in meaning of Tashbeeh and it was this realisation which forced Shaykh Madani to accept Islamic position of Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In context of Tashbeeh the statement would mean that author is comparing propheting knowledge of Ghayb with knowledge of those Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Implication of which would be; whatever is the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and qaudrupeds all share his quantity and type of knowledge. 4.2 - Refuting Shaykh Naumani’s; Aisa In Meaning Of Itna Without Tashbeeh: Consider this as; throwing Shaykh Naumani’s argument to dogs along side him. Shaykh argued aisa (i.e. like-this) means itna (i.e. this-much) in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and he referrenced poetical verses and popular usage in which aisa can be taken as subsitute for itna. Even if Shaykh Thanvi didn’t use aisa instead he used itna it would have made no difference because Shaykh Thanvi was negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and foundation of this is Tashbeeh/comparision. Golden rule is to affirm/negate a merit of one explicit/implicit comparision is fundamental. And not to under do the research we have following quote from Deobandi account of debate which affirms itna can too be for Tashbeeh: “It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.”[4] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Note even though author doesn’t accept Shaykh Naumani’s itna in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is for Tashbeeh; but what does the golden rule say? Referr back to it please and then referr to relevent footnote of my article. Thus be it aisa or itna the bottom line is in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman when merit/quality is being negated Tashbeeh is fundamental part of it. In addition to what has already been stated please take special notice of following: To establish speciality of one over another or negate naturally comparision has to be made and comparision can be implied or explicit. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman, aisa (i.e. like-this) has been used, which is always indictive of explicit Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Secondly for comparision there has to be; ‘the compared’1 and ‘the compared to’2. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a ‘quality/attribute’3 in which ‘the compared’ is being compared to ‘the comapred to’. And we find those in Hifz ul-Iman; ‘the compared’ is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And ‘the compared to’ to are Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And the quality is Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of Ghayb). Please note all three components are in statemend of Shaykh Thanvi: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge3 like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds2; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] When all the necessary raw materials of Tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman then to negate it is either illiteracy or a deliberate coordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims. 4.3 - Equality In Quantity Is Essential To Negate Speciality And Uniqueness: Following is rephrasing of first principle: If two are equals one is no better then the other. If Shaykh Thanvi had belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) same of knowledge of Ghayb as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics when one reads the following: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Otherwise Shaykh Thanvi could not have said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no speciality over these mentioned. If he believed in speciality of prophetic knowledge he would not have negated speciality and defended this statement. In the best case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity and in worst case to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds. Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for these two reasons. Please bare in mind principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another via comparision between two parties due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this meaning; it establishes equality in quantity at minimum. And it would be unfair to pass it of as valid possibility. Conclusion: The basic rule regarding statements type of Hifz ul-Iman is; X has to be compared to Y in quantity/type to establish/negate. Without comparision in quantity/type of Ghayb speciality of prophetic Ghayb cannot be negated. And if there is equality in quantity there would be no speciality of one over another. Or if there is less and greater quantity then lesser has no speciality/uniqueness over the greater. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman the structuring of sentence restricts interpretation to; negation of speciality/uniqueness via equality in quantity; and not via prophetic knowledge being less then of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. In this context Shaykh Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman stated; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his baaz quantity of Ghayb knowledge is not special because knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was possessed by Zayd, Amr, animals, lunatics, quadrupeds, and infants. In defence of Shaykh Thanvi Deobandi Shuyukh stated statement is not about equality in quantity nor the author attempted to establish equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani deemed Tashbeeh to be Kufr and said aisa (i.e. like-this) is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) without tashbeeh. And Shaykh Madani said it is in meaning of Tashbeeh if it was itna it would be Kufr. Both these Shuyukh contradicted each other and both considered other Taweeli understanding of Hifz ul-Iman to be Kufr. Unfortunately for Shaykh Thanvi he was the original source of Taweels of Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Naumani. Shaykh Thanvi said indirectly … tashbeeh or itna … statement is perfectly fine. All Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani collectively managed was; Shaykh Thanvi’s both Taweel are Kufr and certified Shaykh Thanvi’s and their own Kufr. Statement like of Hifz ul-Iman mentions two parties … X and Y … X is not special/unique in his Ilm al-Ghayb. Aisa is used for comparision and all raw materials of comparision are in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Party X and party Y and the merit/quality of Ilm al-Ghayb which is being negated via comparision. Negation of speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb via comparision is through equality in quanitity. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] Poor folk were decieved by deception of Bast al-Banan in which Shaykh Thanvi completely denied what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman. Other extreme is that smart Deobandis say Shaykh Thanvi changed the statement in Hifz ul-Iman therefore he cannot be blamed any longer and he is unfairly being targetted. In response to those; Shaykh Thanvi never repented and Shaykh made that clear in Bast al-Banan and Tagheer ul-Unawan. Changing of statement was merely to avoid difficulties faced by his supporters in debates. And Shaykh realised his statement ‘people lacking depth of understanding’ will ‘misunderstand’ and take it to be insulting therefore he agreed to change it. In other words it was effort to reorganise forces for further battle and not acceptance of fault/sin and repentence. - [2] Slightly longer version:“And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] - [3] Shaykh Naumani argued aisa without jaisa is not always for tashbeeh. In response to which Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) gave following speech during his debate with Shaykh Manzoor Naumani: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] Note Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) used aisa on its on to tactfully insult Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani to acknowledge aisa without jaisa is for tashbeeh. Feeling the sting of Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) rebuke Shaykh Naumani couldn’t keep his deception going for too long and said: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] For the remainder of debate Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) enquired from Shaykh Naumani why were his words directed toward Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani insult and not Shaykh Thanvi’s word insult toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? - [4] The compiler and I assume that is Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain said:“It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Shaykh Naumani said aisa with jaisa is surely for tashbeeh because there is no jaisa there is no tashbeeh. And aisa is in meaning of itna. Note in the first example Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain used similar strategy which Shaykh Naumani used. His example is itna with jitna with which he is indicating tashbeeh without jitna cannot exist. Fact is Shaykh Naumani conceeded that there can be tashbeeh without jaisa and footnote 3 of this article is proof of it therefore please refer to it for complete detail. And if you remember then please read the following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] Should I too do itna without jitna and demonstrate itna can be for tashbeeh? It can be said: ‘Shaykh Madani was itna abusive that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani felt like he is an innocent angel in company of Shaykh Madani.’ Implication here is that Mirza al-Kazzab al-Dajjal was abusive but Shaykh Madani was sooOOooO abusive comparision to Mirza; al-Kazzab, al-Dajjal, that Mirza felt he is blameless. Shaykh Rafaqat used two examples lets analyze their reality. Zayd is itna rich jitna Umru. Shaykh Rafaqat agrees it was for tashbeeh. Agar kaha jahay: Zayd bhot maldar heh aur itna hi Umru maldar heh. If it is said: Zayd is very rich and ina (i.e. as-much-as) rich is Umru. Can Shaykh Rafaqat or the clan of defenders of Kufr deny this tashbeeh? Even if the Shayateen disbelieve in tashbeeh the principle makes it clear when merit/quality is being established/negated between two parties in a sentence then tashbeeh is fundamentally part of statement be it implied or explicit. Alhasil; Shaykh Rafaqat can play all games he likes the fundamental rule will not allow him or his ilk evade the evident truth.

Updated. Exposing The Reality Of Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman With Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan And Taghyeer Ul-Unawan. Introduction: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi wrote letter to Shaykh Thanvi citing Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Hussam al-Haramayn. Shaykh Darbhangi informs Shaykh Thanvi that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following statement; Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by infant, madman, every animal, and every quadruped. Then he proceeded to ask four questions regarding Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. The response to these four questions was published as Bast al-Banan. 0.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement: Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood! And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16 , here] 0.1 – A Template For Explanation: Please note an (alphabet) will be inserted to help fully expand the statement of Shaykh Thanvi to its fullest natural meaning. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being(a) then matter needs to be enquired(b); is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb(c); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this(d) what is so unique about Hadhoor(e); Ghayb knowledge like-this(f) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Note that Urdu readers will naturally be able to drive the meanings but in translation to English some connections have been lost hence it is important to point them out clearly and explicitly as possible. So the following exposition is only highlighting imbeded meaning of statement. 0.2 - Statement Expanded In Accordance With Natural Meaning: Shaykh wrote: ““If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being(a) then matter needs to be enquired …” Words ‘zaat e muqaddisa’ translated to mean ‘holy being’ referrs to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the following, “…then matter needs to be enquired(b); is intended …”, contextually Zaid is enquired and this Zaid can be anyone who suggests Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses Ilm al-Ghayb. In the following, “… is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb(c) …”, Qull means all/every, and erroneously it is believed Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge of Ghayb is Qull, it is too widely held notion, therefore whenever it is used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reader should assume limitless knowledge of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In the following, “…is intended; then in this(d) what is so unique …”, word is-mein translated to mean in-this is hint toward baaz ilm al-Ghayb. In the following he uses Hadhoor to referr to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor(e) …” Hadhoor means, honorable, Hadhir (i.e. present); and in subcontinent it is popularly used individually or as a prefix for religiously esteem personalities. And context here determines it is used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the following, “…Ghayb knowledge like-this(f) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …”, word aisa has been used to mean like-this and it is a hint toward baaz Ilm al-Ghayb being discussed in context. Putting all this into context the statement naturally means: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” 0.3 - Naturally Implied Further Expansion Of Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb(a); baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in-this(b) baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this(c) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In all three places some questions and their answers can remove the ambiguity. Please note readers should read the brief questions in context of relevent part of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement. In first part (a): The Urdu says; “… is Ghayb say murad baaz Ghayb heh ya …” English; “..is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or …” Question is; in which Ghayb and whose Ghayb? In second place (b): Urdu reads; “… baaz uloom Ghaybiya murad hen toh is-mein …” English; “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in-this …” The questions are; in what and in whose? Finally in third place (c): Urdu reads; “… aisa ilm e Ghayb toh …” English; “… Ghayb knowledge like-this …” Question: what knowledge of Ghayb and whose knowledge of Ghayb? Contextually it is evident he is discussing the Ghayb which Zaid attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the category of baaz ilm al-Ghayb which Shaykh Thanvi himself suggested out of Baaz and Qull to discuss the attribution of title Aalim ul-Ghayb. In light of this the statement to its fullest sense should be understood in the following: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this baaz which was considered for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The statement is fully expanded and meanings which were understood through Zameers (i.e. hints) of words such as; ees Ghayb, is-mein, aisa and contextually are supported. Readers are more then welcome to referr to original statement quoted in section 0.0 and carry out comparative analysis of original and expanded version. 1.0 - Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat On Shaykh Thanvi In His Hussam al-Haramayn: Shaykh Naumani in his Faisla Kun Munazra verbatim quoted the following: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’[1] I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.”[2] [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here.] Following continues from where Shaykh Naumani left but it is being quoted from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (alayhi rahmat ar-Rahman) Hussam al-Haramayn: “And how the boastful ignormous could not understand that Zayd and Umru and names of others he mentioned; if they know a matter of Ghayb even then it would gained through speculation. And definitive (knowledge of) matters of Ghayb is purely for Prophets (alayhis salam). And definitive knowledge of Ghayb if it is known by non-Prophets then it is through Prophets informing them and not through anyone else. And have you not seen how your Lord has stated: ‘Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers.’ [Ref: 3:179] ‘The knower of the unseen (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone, Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, …’ [Ref: 72:26/27] See how this man left the Quran and lost his faith. And ended up enquiring what is difference between Prophet and animals (in regards to Ghayb). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sets seal on heart of every deceptively arrogant (person) like this.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88, here.] 2.0 - Bast Al Banan The Deception Of Shaytan: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi introduces why the need for questions arose: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification …” He then proceeds to pose four questions about what was attributed to Shaykh Thanvi by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “(i) Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such? (ii) If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied? (iii) Or did you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” And following is response of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi: (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] 3.0 – First Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Note if you have difficulty grasping the natural meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman please referr to section 0.1 and 0.2. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted the following words of Hifz ul-Iman:“…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following meanings: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” Shaykh Darbhangi introduced the allegation of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in the following words: “…that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped …” In context of what Shaykh Darbhangi attributed to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi -; Shaykh Darbhangi enquired: “Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such?” Shaykh Thanvi lies and states: “In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart.” Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Thanvi’s controversial statement and meaning of it is; there is nothing special about baaz knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge like of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by regulars Joe’s, every; infant, lunatic, and all; animals and quadrupeds. And Shaykh Thanvi precisely wrote this in Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 3.1 - Taghyeer ul-Unwan Exposes Lies Told In Bast al-Banan: Shaykh Thanvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. In which a un-named supporter of Shaykh Thanvi suggests to Shaykh that he should alter the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. He believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting and based this fact the un-named Mawlvi’s omitted portion of letter likely read: Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh). And that statement is not from heaven/sky nor it is revelation; whose apparent wording and (contextual) reason of statement with exact words should remain” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in respose to un-named adviser and questioner writes: “It is very good advice. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. Prior to this no one pointed out the reason (why the statement of Hifz ul-Iman should be changed) therefore (I held to belief that) altering of statement would make it against the intended meaning (of Hifz ul-iman and this would) evidence of confession (of Kufr). And confession of Kufr is Kufr therefore didn’t only think alteration of necessary but didn’t even consider it legitimate. Now in this question the reason stated is realistic enough (i.e.أمرواقعي). Therefore accepting your advice I am altering the …” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page122, here.] Shaykh Thanvi confesses to fact that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is; if seen has it is written then it is insulting and Deobandis are struggling to defend him. And he stated it is amr waqi’i what the questioner stated. In other words he agrees with what the questioner stated; statement is apparently insulting for those lack depth of understanding, the meaning objected are genuine possibility, and his followers struggle in defending his statement. 4.0 - Second Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And Second Answer: Shaykh Darbhangi enquires from Shaykh Thanvi: “If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied?” Shaykh Thanvi once again shamelessly lies and states: “This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: …” In the following portion Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi states: “A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin (i.e. righteous Muslim); in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Here Shaykh Thanvi has indirectly/implicitly has stated what he stated earlier and what he was accused of by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Not forgetting he explicitly/directly stated what he was accused of. And once again I quote his own words: ); “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” 4.1 - Second Question And Answer: Kufri/Insulting Meaning Can Be Implied: Now getting to the meat of matter: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani are on the record for presenting Taweel (i.e. alternative interpretation) of this statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi are of view statement is in sense of quantity and aisa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) and not in comparative sense. And they believe if it was in comparative sense then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would be insulting/Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand is of opinion; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is to be understood in comparative sense because aisa (i.e. like this) has been used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And if it was used in sense of quantity; in meaning of itna then it would be insulting/Kufr. Ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said; aisa is used in this meaning and not in this. And if it was in this meaning then it would have been objectionable (due to being insulting and Kufr). All this in effort to defend against accusation of Kufr. And both parties of Deobandi sect consider Taweel of other party as insulting and Kufr. Now if there wasn’t explicit or implicit Kufr then why would both parties consider understanding of other party as insulting and Kufr! In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent at the very least implied insult/Kufr in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. 5.0 - Shaykh Darbhangi’s Third Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Answer: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” Shaykh Darbhangi enquired regarding what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “Or did you intend such a topic/meaning?” And Shaykh Thanvi responds to it by saying: “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning?” Shaykh Thanvi deemed what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to him as filthy (i.e. khabees) and he said he could not even comprehend it let alone intend such filth. But the grand master of deception and lies precisely wrote what he deems khabees mazmoon (i.e. filthy subject/meaning): “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” 6.0 - Shaykh Darbhangi’s Fourth Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Answer: For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please study both parts and see if there are differences in summary of what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi and what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman. Now coming to what Shaykh Darbhangi enquired from Shaykh Thanvi in quite detail: “If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” Shaykh Thanvi answered the question in detail saying: “Any person believes as such, or without believing it, explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (from the merits of) pride of children of Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions.” In light of what was attributed by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to Shaykh Thanvi, and what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman, and his own Fatwah of Kufr: We Muslims would be justified to say; Shaykh Thanvi declared himself Kafir. Conclusion: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi belief that there is nothing special about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb because knowledge of like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also known to every day Joe’s, every infant, lunatic and all animals and quadrupeds. And this is precisely what Shaykh Thanvi wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Thanvi deceptively denied ever writing anything like it and declared it Kufr but Hifz ul-Iman is testimony to it and proof of his own Kufr in light of his own edict. Further proof of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman being insulting and disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), therefore Kufr, is the statement of supporter of Shaykh Thanvi, which he himself quoted in Taghyeer ul-Unwan. And Shaykh Thanvi agreed with conclusions of his supporter. Therefore the Muslims were/are justified in declaring Shaykh Thanvi of being Kafir and charging those who defend his statement of Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] To inform the readers of belief of Shaykh Thanvi -; Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) only quoted the under lined part of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal and quadrupeds because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left the material in between because Shaykh Thanvi explicitly stated Baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not special. And the material that followed Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the Baaz Ghayb doesn’t establish speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb. - [2] Please note Shaykh Naumani translated Arabic words of Hussam ul-Haramayn in his Faisla Kun Munazra (i.e. the decisive debate) and his translation of Arabic Hussam al-Haramayn is word for word copy of Shaykh Thanvi’s Urdu found in Hifz ul-Iman, here. Indicating Shaykh Naumani did not find any difference between Arabic of Hussam al-Haramayn and Urdu of Hifz ul-Iman. And following his footsteps I have inserted relevent portions of my English translation of Hifz ul-Iman into English translation of Hussam al-Haramayn.

Updated. Disrespect And Insult Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallm) In Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi's Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a Deobandi scholar is a controversial personality. Scholars like of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) deem him to be Kafir due to Shaykh Thanvi writing a statement which insults Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This brief article will attempt to explain how Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is disrespectful and insults Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Insulting And Disrespectful Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Negates Uniqueness And Compares Prophetic Ghayb: There are two important features of his statement: i) Shaykh Thanvi negates uniqueness/speciality of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) via his knowledge of Ghayb. ii) In order to negate/refute speciality of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb Shaykh compares his knowledge of Ghayb with Zayd and Amr (i.e. regular Joe’s), infants, lunatics, and animals of all types. Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) Reaction When Counted Amongst Destables: It is recorded in Ahadith if dog, donkey, and a woman pass infront of person performing Salah then it would be invalidated: “It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “The prayer is severed by a woman, a dog and a donkey.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H950] “It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Mughaffal that the Prophet said: “The prayer is severed by a woman, a dog and a donkey.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H951] When this was mentioned presence of wife of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) she took exception to mention/inclusion of women into this; as it is established from following Hadith: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have made our (women) comparision with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493] Please note the mere mention of women in the list of unclean animals offended her and took it to mean women are being compared with animals. Shaykh Thanvi explicitly compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through his knowledge with the mentioned: “… Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” First of all to even mention Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) amongst the mentioned is insulting and disrespectful. By comparing RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with mentioned even in knowledge denotes Shaykh Thanvi deemed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be equale and like the mentioned in knowledge. Insult And Disrespect Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): To put it into perspective of UK incident. Recently went for a hair cut. Not having much to do while waiting for my turn I decided to pic news paper and read. What I read in it prompted me to come home and YouTube said incident to see what the fuss was about. A young boy, Ned Woodman, tiny comedian. His first insult/pun began: Why were people so excited to see the talking dog on the Britian’s Got Talent? Amanda Holden has been on it for years. The audience gasped and judges gasped with mouths wide open. What he insinuated was obvious: He called one of talent show judge as a talking dog. If you logically follow what he said then; he implied people are not excited about Amanda Holden talking on BGT then there is no cause for being excited about talking dog being on BGT. Ofcourse there is an argument to be made in defence of Ned Woodman but the easily accessible and first impression cannot be defended. Deobandis too feel there is justification and Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is defendable and so they attempt it. But they cannot escape the injunctions resulted from following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Shaykh Thanvi compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with mentioned due to his knowledge and little Ned Woodman compared Amanda to talking dog because of her talking. The apparent and easily accessible implication of second is; Ned called her talking dog. So what should the conclusion be with regards to Shaykh Thanvi comparing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to mentioned in knolwedge? That Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a infant in knowledge, lunatic in his knowledge and no better then infants and lunatics in knowledge. Astaghfir ullah ul-azeem. How can this not be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! Comparing To Destable And Unclean Is For Insulting And Disrespect: If one says; Shaykh Thanvi is a human being like Dajjal. Or says; Shaykh Thanvi is like village idiot in knowledge of Tajweed. Shaykh Thanvi and cursed Dajjal are both human beings and in being human being they are like each other. By comparing him to a an enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) even in Bashariyyah (i.e. humaness) indicates Shaykh is being insulted. Shaykh Thanvi may have equal knowledge of Tajweed, plus/minus bits, like a village idiot but to compare him to an idiot is to insult him. Shaykh Thanvi compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his knowledge to animals, infants, lunatics, every day Joe’s, unclean carnivorous animals in his following statement: “… Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Yes he may not have intended to do so but from his statement he is indeed guilty of disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In our daily language we compare people with detestables to insult or to imply an insult. We say; stop eating like a pig. Even though it means stop eating too much. Is that appropriate way of putting it? Ojbective behind is to degrade through comparision in order to achieve the objective – i.e. eating less. So when Shaykh Thanvi compares prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lunatics and infants the primary objective is to degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh wants to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prevent Muslims from believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) is Aalim ul-Ghayb. From his perspective; when the Muslims realize there is nothing special about his knowledge of Ghayb in comparision to lunatics and infants then there is no reason to hold to the belief at all. Conclusion: Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman compares Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to infants, lunatics, regular Joe’s, herbivores and carnivores. And it is matter of principle; when a superior is compared to detestable, unclean, and it results a merit being negated then insult is always meant. Also merely being mentioned amongst the list of donkey, dog, and pig is enough to indicate insult and disrespect but when a great personality is compared to inferior merit of lowly then insult is always meant. Shaykh Thanvi compared the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through his prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lowly and disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Thanvi was indeed guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and is guilty of negating uniqueness oprophetic knowledge of Ghayb in comparision to infants, lunatics, animals, and regular Joe’s. And fact is prophetic knowledge is unique and special and how and why is for another article.

Updated. Contradictons In Deobandi Understanding Of Hifz ul-Iman And The Fruits Of Disagreement. Introduction: In an effort to defend against blame of insult/disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Deobandi scholarship engaged in a massive compaign of disinformation and distortion. But the lies and compaign of deception had one missing ingredient, the truth, and a such they all contradicted and belied themselves. All who took on path of defending Shaykh Thanvi from charge of Kufr complicated the problem even more for themselves. In my own words: One Maulvi said it means this, and if it was that then it would be Kufr. And the other Maulvi said it means that, and if it was this meaning then it would be Kufr. One declared other Kafir and other declared one Kafir. They all tried their luck and all belied and resulted in refuting each other and indirectly declaring each other Kafir. Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Note the underlined Urdu word is aisa (i.e. like-this). 0.0 - The Quotations Taken From Deobandi Side: This article will utilize material of debate famous debate between Islamic scholar Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Manzoor Naumani al-Deobandi. The Deobandi account of debate was been published some sixty years after the debate as: Fatah Bareilly Ka Diskash Nazara. In reality this ‘victory’ was such a crushing defeat. When truth became evident to him Shaykh Naumani couldn’t just accept it so Shaykh Naumani made excuse that he needs to refresh his Wudhu. And he didn’t return to his podium; this was due to his ‘victory’. Shaykh Naumani’s great escape was so shameless that he left his, specs, books, turban, walking-staff and even his shoes in the Masjid, and never came back, again sign of his victory. Shaykh Naumani never debated any Islamic scholar again after this crushing defeat. Prior to this debate Shaykh Naumani had some twenty-five debates but this one proved so crushing that it made him debate-pacifist. His magzine which was printed in Bareilly stopped selling due to his ‘victory’. Deobandi Madrassa which he was in-charge of had exodus moment after the debate and was eventually closed its doors again due to his ‘victory’. His Deobandi students joined Madrassa Manazar e Islam which was run by brother of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). 0.1 - Sixty Years After The Debate Deobandis Claim Victory: Some sixty years after (i.e. in 90’s) the Deobandis decided to publish the work of lie/deception using Muslim account [which was published in same year of debate] as template and inserted great deal in it and called it Fatah e Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara (i.e. beautiful scenary of conquest of Bareilly). Publishing it after so long itself casts doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of Deobandi account because after so long it is almost impossible to remember what happened sixty years ago. Even those who were in twenty’s at the time of writing this account would have been in their eighty’s; an age where it is difficult to remember what the person did yesterday. And which one of them can claim to accurately, in sequence, tell me what they did a week before; sixty years after; get over yourself liar, you’re not that good. Any how despite authors best effort Deobandi account is enough to prove Shaykh Naumani had no place to hide except escape. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills readers will see the truth shining in 3.0/3.4 part of this article. Note Muslim account of debate was published as; Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Mufassil Rudad (i.e. Clear Account Of God Given Victory In Debate Of Bareilly), here. Coincidently since 90’s Deobandis have also been attempting to turn debate of Jhang [between great scholar; Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi rahimullah and Deobandi Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi] as their victory. Such decisive was Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi’s defeat just like Shaykh Naumani’s defeat Shaykh Jhangvi never spoke against Muslims in his speeches instead he targetted Shias. The judges all unanimously gave verdict that Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) won the debate but 20 years after it it became a Deobandi victory. And luckily the recording of Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi’s (rahimullah) debate with Shaykh Jhangvi is still available so the truth cannot be concealed. So it seems there is concentrated effort to turn past defeats into victories by 70’s to 90’s generation of Deobandis. 0.2 - Authenticity And Accuracy Of Debate Accounts: I do not believe Muslim account of debate is hundered percent accurate, linked above, because details cannot be remembered. At best even this account is brief and from perspective of person who witnessed it and not what was said by both parties. Meaning author gave his own insight how he viewed the debate. Deobandi account has distinction; it is free of this but its publication in 1990’s erodes its authenticity. At best the content has been improved and likely with aid of Shaykh Naumani because it he was alive uptil 1997, or maybe in light of his written works. The writer omitted the contradiction between Shaykh Naumani and his teacher Shaykh Madani which Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) brought up again and again in debate: Such as mention of aisa (i.e. like this) not being for Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) meaning itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) and yeh (i.e. this) according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi. And according to Shaykh Madani aisa (i.e. like this) being for Tashbeeh and not being for itna (i.e. this-much). Shaykh Naumani could not own it nor he could disown position of his senior Shaykh Madani and the result was he had no answer. He was being refuted by his own side and his own teacher. This contradiction and its implications will be mainstay of this article. 1.0 – Aisa Is Of Is-Qadr, Itna, Yeh And Not Tashbeeh: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is reported to have said: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] “And when I refuted your saying and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages89, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Naumani also said aisa (i.e. like) can also be in meaning of yeh (i.e. this): “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani writes word aisa (means; like this) has been used in meaning of itna (means; this much) and it is not for tashbeeh (means; to compare, comparision) between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other group mentioned in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In the following Shaykh Naumani states both meanings itna/yeh: “I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani that aisa is in meaning of itna/is-qadr (both mean; this much): “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Alhasil according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi aisa (i.e. like) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi has not been used for sake of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but in meaning of yeh, itna, and is-qadr. 1.1 – Aisa For Tasbeeh, Not Of Itna And Is-Qadr: Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani contradicts Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi and says if it was used in meaning of itna (also indirectly implies; is-qadr, because both mean same) then it would be (valid) reason for objection because it would imply prophetic knowledge is being equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. He goes on to acknowledge that word aisa (like) is for sake of tashbeeh: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] In another part of his book Shaykh Madani indicates that there is tashbeeh in prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, carnivores but it is in baaz (i.e. limited) al-Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (between Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam and Zaid, Bakr, Umar etc) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] And on same page goes on to say that anyone who deos not see the usage of aisa in meaning of tashbeeh is basicly an idiot: “Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz (i.e. some, limited) and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in his Tahgeer ul-Unwan quotes letter of un-named Deobandi Mawlvi who requested statement of Hifz ul-Iman is altered because it is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh).” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Note this statement of Shaykh Thanvi even according to his own supporter is insulting and is in sense of comparision. 1.2 – Shaykh Naumani On Consequences If Aisa For Tashbeeh: According to Deobandi account of Munazra Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of tashbeeh because aisa is used to compare prophetic knowledge with Ghayb of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. And based on his this belief he said the following: “Muslims! Listen again; this is the Kufri statement of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” See the obvious meaning of this statement is that knowledge of Ghayb possessed by jaisa (i.e. like) of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. like) of it is also possessed by every; child, lunatic, and every animal. What can be more disrespectful of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then this? You (Shaykh Naumani) say; in this statement word jaisa (i.e. like) is not used and I agree this is the case but word aisa (i.e. like) is used and this (aisa) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Note if I say; Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is aisa (i.e. like) of donkey, is like of dog, then will there be no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)! Certainly there is (tashbeeh) and you will definitely be upset over it (i.e. usage of such words for you) even though (aisa) is without word jaisa (i.e. like) and only word aisa (i.e. like) has been used. Hence due to usage of aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman therefore certainly knowledge of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been compared (i.e. tashbeeh) with (knowledge of) animals, lunatics, and his knowledge has been equaled with them.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Page61, here.] In another part of heavily embellished and greatly distorted account of debate Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is reported to have said: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh. Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned). Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, here] Please pay attention to the following: Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi believe aisa was not used to compare the prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds, and carnivores. Instead aisa is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) which denotes quantity and it is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani believes if aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be insult and therefore Kufr: “This should be apparent to the honorable audience due to the discussion that between me and Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) that there is no dispute over principles and (understanding of) issue (of disrespect being Kufr). Because we all agree that insult of leader of both worlds (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) and even slight disrespect is Kufr but it is severe (type of) Kufr. Dispute is only over the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Suppose if meaning of this statement is as Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) says then it would also be Kufr according to us. And if the meaning of statement is that which I have explained then even according to Maulvi Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) Kufr would not be proven.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages69/70, here.] Alhasil point is Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe if Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was of comparision/tashbeeh, as Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and as Muslims believe then they too would deem it Kufr. 1.3 - Shaykh Naumani Contradicts His Own Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Naumani wrote if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was written in sense of tashbeeh then it would be Kufr. Not surprisingly Shaykh Naumani is contraidicting his own Shaykh Thanvi by saying this. Memory of Shaykh Naumani failed him. Ten years had passed from the first publication of Hifz ul-Iman then Shaykh Darbhangi asked four questions answer to which were published as Bast al-Banan. While responding to Shaykh Darbhangi’s questions Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Naumani says it would be Kufr if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of tashbeeh and Shaykh Thanvi says even though statement is not in comparative sense but even if it was there would be nothing wrong with it because of x y z. 1.4 - Naumani, Darbhangi, Madani, And Thanvi Caught In Their Lies: Over all, its two VS two, match. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani. Two say tashbeeh isn’t Kufr and two say tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement would be Kufr. Shaykh Naumani says aisa is in meaning of yeh, is-qadr/itna. Meaning of aisa as itna Shaykh Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani. And against these two is Shaykh Madani who says it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna because if there was itna then there would be equality in quantity of prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants; which would make Shaykh Thanvi’s statement Kufr. In over-all Shaykh Thanvi has two positions, aisa in meaning of itna, evident from his example of Allah is aisa Raziq. And he holds to position even in tashbeeh sense the statement would not be Kufr. In other words Shaykh Thanvi believes there is no possibility of Kufr how ever the statement is understood; in sense of quantity or tashbeeh; there is no Kufr. In tashbeeh sense Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by his tag team; Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi. In sense of quantity Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by Shaykh Madani. And Shaykh Madani’s position is refuted by Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi reasoning. And position of Shaykh Naumani/Darbhangi justly is refuted by Shaykh Madani. In summary we witness a little royal jungle rumble between the Maulvis of Deobandism on same statement. 1.5 - The Verdict On Aisa, Itna, Is-qadr, Yeh, And Tashbeeh: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is in meaning of itna/is-qadr and yeh therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement was for sake of comparision then it would be Kufr. And Shaykh Madani believes statement is in meaning of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of itna/is-qadr it would be Kufr. Alhasil Shaykh Darbhangi/Naumani VS Madani; both groups consider other party’s interpretation as Kufr. It would have helped Islamic cause greatly if both parties of Deobandis had declared each other Kafir for holding to Kufri understanding of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement because then Muslims wouldn’t have been accused of saying both parties are Kafir. And we the Muslims say to both of them: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi you both are correct in your understanding; tashbeeh is Kufr. And Shaykh Madani you’re also correct; statement of Hifz ul-Iman in meaning of itna (or is-qadr) is Kufr. The Islamic verdict is that there is no valid interpretation of controversial and Kufri statement; of tashbeeh is Kufr and of itna/is-qard and yeh is Kufr. Islamic position, inlcuding Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimulllah alayhi ta’ala) and Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), with regards to Hifz ul-Iman has always been; it is Kufr and there is no valid interpretation which can save Shaykh Thanvi from Kufr accept repentence. 2.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement And Its Interpretations: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi agreed upon itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) meaning and Shaykh Naumani ascribed to an additional meaning of yeh (i.e. this). And both of these possibilities have been put into context of Shaykh Thanvi’s : (i) “… what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” (ii) In light of Shaykh Naumani’s aisa meaning yeh the controversial statement would read: “… what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); yeh (i.e. this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The objective was to remove natural meaning of Tashbeeh, or remove obvious Tashbeeh from Shaykh Thanvi and make it difficult for the readers to see tashbeeh in the statement. 2.1 - Claim Of No Tashbeeh In Itna/Is-Qadr Refuted: Shaykh Thanvi statement goes like: “… a) if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); b) Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In the underlined part of sentence a he is discussing prophetic Ghayb. Second underlined sentence b Shaykh connected it with a via usage of aisa (i.e. like-this). In simple words; Shaykh Thanvi enquires what is so unique about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge of Ghayb, knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr: “… aisa knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” It means he has compared the quantity of prophetic knowledge in category of baaz with the mentioned (i.e. Zayid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants) and has come to conclusion through comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) of quantity of Ghuyub; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the mentioned creations both have baaz knowledge of Ghayb and one party is no better then other. Therefore without Tashbeeh he could not have come to mentioned conclusion and would not have concluded in the following words: “(If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” A point of principle must be remembered: To negate or to establish uniqueness/speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb; comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) between the Ghuyub of mentioned beings in statement of Hifz ul-iman and Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has to be made. And this comparision must be regarding types of Ghuyub known and of quantity of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) and beings mentioned in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Even if reader is unable to percieve it the stated principle, underlined, should make it easy for the reader to accept there is Tashbeeh in itna and is-qadr in the light of fact; Shaykh Thanvi negated uniqueness of prophetic of Ghayb. 2.2 - For Argument Sake: There Is No Tashbeeh In Itna And Is-Qadr: According to Islamic scholarship of subcontinent Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is statement of Tashbeeh and Shaykh Madani the Khalifah of Shaykh Thanvi believes this as well. Yet for this little exercise readers should disregard the notion of Tashbeeh and read aisa in sense of itna without Tashbeeh. Shaykh wrote: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The statement can be understood in two ways, aisa is referring to baaz, therefore statement: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Also aisa can also be pointing toward prophetic knowledge and this is best and natural understanding of controversial statement. In this context the statement would read: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge being considered for Prophet is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” If aisa was hint toward baaz, or hint toward prophetic-Ghayb; in both cases contextually baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of mentioned creations is being equaled in quantity of baaz. Aisa in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr makes it this much more clear that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is equalling quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. And this why Shaykh Madani said aisa is not in meaning of itna but in meaning of Tashbeeh. Even without Tashbeeh meaning of Aisa there is Kufr in the statement because Itna’s quantity is being compared. 3.3 - Mother Of Righteous Muslims And Case Of Implied Tashbeeh: Mother of righteous believers took offense when mention of women was made amongst those which invalidate prayer: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493) “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486) Note even though it was just a mention of women, dogs, and donkeys being cause of invalidating prayers she took exception to it. The reason is obvious; the tashbeeh was implied due to women being mentioned in list of animals; dogs and donkeys. She had a very refined and comprehensive understanding of tashbeeh therefore she noted the logical implication of being mentioned in list of unclean animals. If an bad-ikhlaq (i.e. ill-mannered) person like our Shaykh Madani says: All humans are children of Adam (alayhis salam) therefore brothers/sisters. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi, the cursed Firawn, the Dajjal, Abu Jahl, Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani, Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi and others like them are brothers. A person with finely tuned sense of manners will understand that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by being mentioned in the list of worst human beings known to a Muslim. In this context lets visit the statement of Shaykh Thanvi again: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. this-much, this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In this statement at the very least there is argument for Tashbeeh due to use of aisa (i.e. like). And proof of aisa in the statement being used for Tashbeeh is that Shaykh Madani took it in sense of Tashbeeh. What would be the reaction of Umm ul-Momineen (radiallah ta’ala anhu) if she read this statement of Shaykh Thanvi? Would she give him good-news of being righteous Muslim or a disbeliever? Anyone with with love and respect and refined manners and is still upon Fitrah (i.e. pure state) will understand why this statement of Shaykh Thanvi is disrespectful. 4.0 - Aisa In Meaning Of Tashbeeh Is Kufr And Example From Shaykh Naumani: If aisa was in comparative meaning as Shaykh Madani said; aisa is for Tashbeeh. In this context Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); comparatively aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] According to Shaykh Madani statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in comparative meaning on its natural meaning not in context of itna/is-qadr, or yeh. And even Shaykh Naumani agrees it is but not in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in context of his self and his Shaykh Thanvi. 4.1 - Shaykh Naumani Bites Trap Set By Mawlana Sardar Ahmad: Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) knew Shaykh Naumani would not accept and tolerate if he and Shaykh Thanvi are insulted/disrespected using words similar to what Shaykh Thanvi used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So he goes on to say: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] After this Shaykh Naumani responds to Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) with following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] He said the same in number of other places. Please note when Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge was compared to dog/donkey’s Shaykh Naumani tactfully responed to insult/disrespect by making the same statement about Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and just as Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) predicted Shaykh Naumani could not tolerate his Shaykh and him being insulted and resorted insulting Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) but in process revealed the truth that aisa without jaisa can be insulting too. Despite knowing the truth about aisa’s usage in sentences likes Mawlana Sardar Ahmad employed and Shaykh Thanvi wrote; Shaykh Naumani could not extend this knowledge for honour Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and defended Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Question arises why would Shaykh Naumani not take the same route in regards to a statement which apparently insults/disrespects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Answer is very simple; he had self respect and had love and respect for Shaykh Thanvi. And had no love or respect for the last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 5.0 - Use Of Ra’ee’ In Hadith By Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) served as guardian/protector of sheep according to following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "Allah did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep." His companions asked him, "Did you do the same?" The Prophet replied, "Yes, I used to shepherd the sheep of the people of Mecca for some Qirats." [Ref: Bukhari, B36, H463] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said; ruler, men, women, slaves are ‘ra’ee’ (i.e. shepherds) in meaning guide and guardian in the following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:The Messenger of Allah as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B19, H2922] And in this context son calling his father, or subject referring to his king as ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd, our guardian, our protector) isn’t offensive or insulting. 5.1 - Rai’na Distorted By Jews To Ra’eena: When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) use to deliver speech companions; if a companion missed something due too far, or someone caughed something was missed, or due to not having capacity to understand what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, the companions would say ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us). And depending upon the circumstance Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) either will repeat what he said or rephrase it so it is accessible for all intellect levels. If the Jews were in the gathering they would distort the word ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and pronounce it as; ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our sheperd). And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions their distortion in the following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say; “We hear and disobey” - and they say; “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say; “ra'eena” (i.e. our shepherd) distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] Calling someone shepherd was, and even remains to this day way negating/discrediting literacy of someone. Due to Jews distorting the word to insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Note the instruction is to believers to not to use word rai’na because it was used by the Jews to disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggests word ‘undhurna’ (i.e. look upon us) which the Jews could not distort to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cryptively. Alhasil this verse prohibits usage of words/sentences which are perfectly fine but can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Rule of Islamic law is; if something is prohibited in lesser degree anything greater then the least is also forbidden. Therefore it would stand to reason, by default, words/sentences which are insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are also prohibited and the threat of punishment for disbelievers is inclusive of insulters. 5.2 - Shaykh Thanvi In Light Verse Of Rai’na And Undhurna: The companions used ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and Jews distorted it and used ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd). So one pronounciation was absolutely fine [because both are written absolutely same] and other was Kufr. Yet none of the companions are on the record for saying or justifying their usage through linguistical usage of ‘rai’na’ or even blaming Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for not knowing how they used it. Instead they realized the situation and left it for better suggestion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The right course of action as indicated by verse was to abandon the controversial statement after Shaykh Thanvi was informed. Not present taweel (i.e. interpretation) in his defence, repeal it, and repent because his statement was evidently insulting. Instead he resorted to denial and presented taweel of his statement and others from his side followed his evil Sunnah: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And in this sense Shaykh Thanvi and those who followed him are all equales. 5.3 - Judgement Regarding Statement And Interpretation Of Others: According to Shaykh Naumani’s claim aisa in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr and in meaning of yeh and not for tashbeeh because in sense of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. According to Shaykh Madani it is to be understood in sense of tashbeeh and not in meaning of itna/is-qadr because it would be Kufr according to his understanding if it was in meaning of itna. Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani both hold to position; statement means this and if it was in this meaning it would be Kufr. Please note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] And the verse gives following meaning; do not use words which insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and which can be misconstrued to insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihiw as’sallam) but use words which are not insulting and which cannot be misconstrued to insult. In light of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani should have refrained from taweel of Shaykh Thanvi’s because by their own acknowledgment one meaning is insulting and therefore Kufr. And those who use insulting statements or statements which can be misconstrued to insult even after the prohibition of it has been made have been declared Kafirs and threatened with punishment: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Or the verse could also be interpreted to mean: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who disblieve in the command of verse) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Both interpretations boil down to Kufr; of those who insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or those who disbelieve in the order given in the verse. And implications of the verse for Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Darbhangi is that they are disbelievers and apostates. All those who believe and defend statement of Hifz ul-Iman after understanding it they are to be deemed Murtadeen (i.e. apostates) and Kafirs (i.e. disbeleivers) providing all avenues prior to Takfir have been exhausted. Conclusion: Shaykh Naumani understands aisa (i.e. like this) to mean yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi understand the usage of aisa to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much). And both negate usage of aisa in sense of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) because Shaykh Naumani considers use of aisa in sense of tashbeeh to be Kufr. In other words; according to Shaykh Naumani, if prophetic knowledge was being compared with every days Joe’s, lunatics, infants, with knowledge of animals then there would be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore verdict of Kufr. Shaykh Thanvi on other hand states it is in quantitive sense even if it was in comparative sense it wouldn’t be Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand believes statement was in comparative sense if it was in quantative sense then it would have been offensive. And Shaykh Thanvi agrees with him that in comparative sense it isn’t offensive but also believes it is not offensive in quantitive sense either. Understanding of Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Madani are two taweels of Shaykh Thanvi; one in quantitive sense, and other of comparative sense; which each side took from Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan while unknowingly considering his other taweel to be offensive. Shaykh Thanvi gets owned by his own representatives because both side of his followers consider one of his accepted version to be offensive. Therefore both positions of Shaykh Thanvi are offensive and Kufr. And the grand act of providence is that Shaykh Naumani party VS Shaykh Madani essentially refute each other. In other words Shaykh Naumani’s understanding of itna/ is-qadr has been argued to be offensive by Shaykh Madani because he said it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna. And Shaykh Madani’s position of tashbeeh has been proven wrong by Shaykh Naumani because of his reasoning that comparative rendering would be offensive and quantitive is not. Revealing that if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was understood in light of itna/is-qadr, or yeh, or tashbeeh it is offensive and Kufr. The established contradiction between the Deobandi Maulvis will be enough for an intelligent person to realise; their accounts don’t match because both sides of Deobandism are lieing. And a believer who fears his Lord and loves the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take this contradiction as proof deception and lies being told by their scholarship to cover-up Shaykh Thanvi’s Kufr. It is important to note that Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) during the debate; as an act of strategy of war against enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) uttered following words about knowledge of Shaykh Naumani and his Shaykh Thanvi: “Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s.” It was then that Shaykh Naumani took offence citing tashbeeh the reason of his understanding. And this establishes the well known and established fact; Deobandis love/respect their own more then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Considering that one group considers A taweel to be insulting/Kufr and B to be perfectly in agreement with Shari’a. And the other considers A taweel to be perfectly justifiable in Shari’ah and B to be Kufr; in this context it can be said there is concensus that statement is insulting/Kufr in Deobandi scholarship. And it also can be said that there isn’t agreement on its Kufr. Negation of Kufr is explicitly stated and is intended objective and confirmation of statement being Kufr is unintended result of lies and deception. The understanding of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ made it obligatory for those who considered at least one taweel of Shaykh Thanvi to be of Kufr to abandon their efforts yet they persisted and died upon this. They disbelieved in the injunction given in the verse and they are the disbelievers. Shaykh Thanvi was unique in his understanding that in quantitive sense or comparative sense his controversial statement is not offensive therefore not Kufr and he was refuted by his own side. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is definitely offensive and insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even though he argues contrary to it and proof against him and his understanding are his sensless representatives aka Shaykh Naumani VS Shaykh Madani. As such he too is no less guilty of Kufr then the those who defend him. They are group of disbelievers and apostates who had disbelieved in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ and consistently insulted the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when the right course of action should have been repentance and repealing of statement. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Updated. Brief Account Of Dispute Surrounding Deobandi Scholar Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi authored Hifz ul-Iman in response to three questions. While answering the last question, about Ilm al-Ghayb, he made number of questionable and disrespectful statements hurting the dignity of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The Islamic scholarship of subcontinent challenged him to retract and repent but he refused. Resulting a controversy between his detractors and his supporters which has lasted hundered years. Shaykh Thanvi And His Disrespectful Statement: It should be noted Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi believed only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ta’ala) has knowledge of Ghayb and not Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And this belief Shaykh Thanvi shared with Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. In context of this belief Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman (1319H/1901CE) in which he attempts respond request of Fatwah (i.e. edict). Questioner states: “A certain individual, Zayd, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and went on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … And says Ilm Al-Ghayb is of two types: bil-Zaat [of one’s ownself]; in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb, none else. And ba-wasta [through means, alternative; bil-Ardh; granted by another] and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb[2]. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] While answering third and last question he made wrote words which at best are questionable. And in their true nature these words are extremely disrespectful and insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) - here: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Thanvi And His Connections: Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is the founder of Deobandism and Wahhabism in subcontinent. He can be considered the founding father of all disputes that have plagued the Muslims of subcontinent. He originated the dispute or had laid the foundation of it. He wrote many books but Taqwiyat ul-Iman was considered his legacy and in which he tactfull insulted Prophets and righteous of Ummah. In the mentioned book he wrote: “Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have!”[1] [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP, here] Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s Deobandism stemed from Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s teaching. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi drank from the same poisonous cup. As result the two mentioned fruits didn’t fall far from the tree. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi being inheritor of their tradition was no different from his three seniors. And disrespecting and insulting the Prophets and Saliheen in pretext of championing Tawheed has ever since become a distinguishing trait via which they are recognised and a repugnant tradition which the theological descendents of Deobandism have kept alive. Hifz ul-Iman And Books Related To It, By Shaykh Thanvi: Hifz ul-Iman was written on 8th of Muharram 1319 Hijri and then ten years later in response to queries of Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi he wrote Bast al-Banan (Sha’ban, 1329 Hijri). In Bast al-Banan Shaykh Thanvi answered the questions posed by Shaykh Darbhangi and resorted presenting Taweel of his statement. Then on 17th of Safar 1342 Hijri in response to a unnamed Maulvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. He agreed statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such that it is difficult to defend against and commoners take it to mean insult. And therefore he accepted the suggestion that statement needs to be modified and unrepentently modified it. Note typically modification of statement is sign of repentence but Shaykh Thanvi wrote in Taghyeer ul-Unwan that he deems statement of Hifz ul-Iman to be blameless but as an act of strategy of war he modified it. Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement In Perspective Of Islamic And Deobandi Belief: If prophetic knowledge is equale in quantity to the mentioned then there would be no speciality for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Or if the type of knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses is same as the mentioned then there is no speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Muslims believe and even sane Deobandis would not disbelieve; both in quantity and type of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are unique/special because this is established from Quran/Hadith. If the quantity of prophetic knowledge is greater by inumerable amount. The type of knowledge he has is definitely unique and special. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. To negate speciality and uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in a fashion Shaykh Thanvi did is disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and can only be written for insult/disrespect purposes. The Reaction To Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: When the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah became aware of this insult they protested at the sheer odacity of Shaykh Thanvi. Scholars of Islam directed his attention toward the insulting and the disrespectful meaning of his statement and pointed out implications of his words. They requested that he repent and repeal the statement. And chief amongst them was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, the Imam, the Mujtahid, and Mujadid, Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Their pleas fell on deaf ears and issue was propelled into realm of debate/discussion. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) repeatedly requested Shaykh Thanvi to discuss/debate the statement and repent but his effort was without success. The End Result Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: After years of effort requesting Shaykh Thanvi to debate/discuss the statement when it became evident Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi will not repent nor will agree to discuss/debate the statement in public/private. This resulted in a edict from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in which Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s and Islam of others like him was invalidated. It received wide spread support from scholars of Arabian Peninsula and subcontinent. And it was published 1324H as Hussam al-Hamarayn Ala Munhar il-Kufri Wal Mayn, here. Ever since the controversy has passed on from generation to generation. Scholars from both sides presenting their side of saga. Then And Now And Our Responsibility: The brief historical account was mentioned because Deobandis over the internet have shamelessly are presenting their own side as if their founding fathers were flag bearers of code chivalry, ethics, and upstanding morals. Yet the reality of their elders and disgusting ethics and repugnant conduct is published in their books. Anyone brave enough to swim in sea of insults and abuse should read Shaykh Murtaza Hassan books, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s master piece of insults, Al-Shihab al-Saqib. If I recall correctly he insulted Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) near enough three-hundred times. Historical saga, of who said what, who was brave, and who was cowering in fear, is totally irrelevent because the truth of dispute is not dependent upon it. We have inherited the dispute and the material which resulted it, and we also have respective position of both sides in books. And these sources should be used to determine if Shaykh Thanvi was guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or not? And it is in our best interest to judge the dispute correctly from perspective of Sharia. Dispute Not Just Over Shaykh But Connected To It Is Something Greater: It should not be and is not about who from both sides is correct. It is truly about upholding the honor of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It is about ensuring Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not disrespected by Muslims who may make similar statements using Shaykh Thanvi’s language as template. It is about protecting the Iman of believers. It is about preventing the disbelievers from insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using Shaykh Thanvi’s statement as template and getting away with insulting and disrespecting him after citing Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. And it is about prohibition of; “… la taqulu raina …” (i.e. do not say raina); meaning using words, sentences which can be misconstrued to insult and disrespect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And anyone who doesn’t see it as such needs to wake-up and smell the coffee and it should refresh his mind. Judge The Dispute Independent Of People Involved: Me calling Shaykh Thanvi a Kafir wouldn’t make him if he was not and you calling him Muslim will not make him so if he was not. Nothing can be added to his burden of sin nor to his record of good deeds if he has not earned it during his life except the reward of good and burden of evil Sunnahs instituted by him and followed after him. He and his antagonists have reached their destination and will be judged according to what they have earned and the Sunnahs they left for others to follow. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] This leaves us; if you and I earn good it is for us and if we sin it is our doing. Depending upon evil/good Sunnah we leave behind those who immitate us will earn us reward or sin. So be fair to your self and make your hereafter your priority. Judge the dispute not the people, give verdict due evidence, and not due to people involved. If you have jumped into this controversy then judge truthfully and honestly because your hereafter is at stake and your legacy will earn you reward or sin. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] “For example one should not say; Allah and Messenger would will then so will happen. All affairs of world/universe are in accordance with will of Allah. Nothing is done with Messenger’s will. Or if a person says to another; what is in heart/mind of that one. Or when will that-one get married? Or how many leaves are on that three? Or how many stars are in the sky? In Answer to it one should not say; Allah and Messenger know! Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have! And there is no harm in some matter of religion; Allah and Rasool knows! Or in this matter Allah’s and Messenger’s instruction is this because all matters of religion Allah has informed the Messenger. And all people have been instructed to obey their Messenger.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP, here] - [2] It can be said with hundered percent confidence that none from Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is dseserving of title of Aalim ul-Ghayb. Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted knowledge of Ghayb. And at best from this belief of Muslims; the questioner has implied that we the Muslims believe RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Alim ul-Ghayb. At worst and most likely; Shaykh Thanvi or the alleged questioner deliberately distorted the reality of Islamic belief. It is typical of all Deobandi/Wahhabi scholarship to erect false boggie man and then knock it down to win converts. Consider it modern equivlent of false-flag covert operation designed to lead the listeners to a predetermined conclusion. All a Deobandi has to do is to show me in a book pre-dating Hifz ul-Iman in which title Aalim ul-Ghayb was used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In fact some eight (1311 Hijri) years prior to Hifz ul-Iman Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his; Al Amn Wal Ula Na’at il-Mustafa Dafa ul-Bala stated; it is Makrooh to consider Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Aalim ul-Ghayb. Yet Shaykh Khalid Mahmood Deobandi, ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan supreme court, in his booklet titled, Aalim ul-Ghayb, state that person who attributed title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah).

Intorduction: This article will explain based on verse of Khaatmiyyah (i.e. Finality) why there can not be another Prophet or Messenger after Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). In the last century three well known individuals Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani of India, Elijah Muhammed of U.S.A, Rashid Khalifah a Egyptian who had settled in U.S.A, have claimed to be Messengers (i.e.Rusul). And due to general ignorance of Muslims, they managed to lead some Muslims astray from path of Islam into path of Kufr. To manage their claims of Prophet-hood and to give themselves a credibility they attempted to distort the meaning of verse of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani negated the traditional meaning of Khaat’m (i.e. last/end) and resorted to other linguistic meanings of the word to faciliate his claim of Prophet-hood and Messengership. Rashid Khalifah held to traditional meaning of Khaat’m. Yet in order to justify his claim to being Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he argued according to the verse; Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is end/last from line of Prophets not Messengers. In contrast to both orthodox Islam teaches; Prophet Muhammed is Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen and after him there is no new Nabi, or new Rasool. And claimants of Prophet-hood and Messengership are liars (i.e. kazzabun) and imposters (i.e. dajjalun) in the word of Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and disbelievers. 0.0 - Quranic Verse On Khatamiyyah Of Prophet Muhammad: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Ma qana Muhammedun aba’hadim mir’rijaliqum wala kir’rasool lal’lahi wa khaat’m un-Nabiyeen.” [Ref: 33:40] Translation of it is as follows: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the khaat’m of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” [Ref: 33:40] Khaat’m has been explained in detail by Arabic linguistis and gramarians. But before knocking on their door lets see how the root word of Khaat’m, Kha-Ta-M, has been employed in Quran. 0.1 Quranic Usage Khaat’m And Its Derivitives And Their Meanings: The root of letter of word Khaatim/Khaatam are letters Kh-Ta-M. These root letters are employed to contruct words which have connecting meanings. In Quran various words evolving from Kh-Ta-M have been employed. Three times word Khatama has been used in connection with sealing/closing of hearing, eyes and heart. Its first occurance is in 2:7: “…خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى” in second in verse 6:46: “…وَخَتَمَ عَلَى …” and lastly in verse 45:23. In another verse 36:65 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employs derivative as nakhtimu while mentioning that mouths of people will be sealed/closed and hands/feet will testify against the person regarding how they were used: “…الْيَوْمَ نَخْتِمُ عَلَى”. In verse 42:24 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employed it as yakhtim: “…فَإِن يَشَأِ اللَّهُ يَخْتِمْ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ …”. The verse mentions accusation of disbelievers that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has attributed to lies to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In response to whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states; if such was the case He would have sealed the heart of Rasoolallah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so that he could not attribute faslehood to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In verse 83:25 word makhtoom has been employed in context of paradise: “.يُسْقَوْنَ مِن رَّحِيقٍ مَّخْتُومٍ“ Contextually the referrence is to people of paradise being presented a drink which has been sealed/closed to perserve flavour, fragrance, and freshness of drink. 0.2 - Arabic Linguists And Gramarians On Khaat’m: Khaat'm is recited Khaatam and as Khaatim. Khaatim means terminator, finalizer. Khaatam means end/final. Imam Abul Mansur al-Azhari (rahimullah) in al-Tahzib attributes to Imam Zujaj (rahimullah) and gramarian Abu Ishaq (rahimullah); Khatm and Taba’a have same meaning. He went on to explain that both words denote meaning of tightly sealing a thing so nothing enters it and then referrences sealing of hearts mentioned in verse 7 of chapter of al-Baqarah as demonstration of meaning used in Quran. He goes on to state that Khaat’m of all things is its last. And while explaining the meaning of verse in discussion he states Khaatam al-Nabiyeen means Akhar al-Nabiyeen (i.e. end/last of the Prophets). Imam Ibn Hammad al-Juhri (rahimullah) in his al-Sihah stated Khaat’m recited with with Fat-ha (i.e. Zabr) and Kasra (i.e. Zey’r) form words Khitaam and Khaataam; all have same meanings. And plural of these words if Khawatim, and Khatimah of a thing means its Akhir (i.e. last/end). And he states in this defined meaning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Khatam ul-Anbiyah (i.e. end of the Prophets). Imam Raghab al-Isfahani (rahimullah) in his Mufradat indicated Khaat’m means end/final. He stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is considered Khat’m al-Nabiyeen because he ended Prophet-hood; in meaning that he completed/finished it. Long story short scholars of Islam of past and present are in agreement that word Khaat’m in Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen verse means; end of the Prophets. 0.3 - Khaat’m In Light Of Hadith And Its Implication: Word (خَاتَمَ) as many means. Popularly in Hadith it has been employed to mean a signet and seal. Apart from denoting officiality a seal historically was used by Kings to prevent messengers from tempering or gaining knowledge about contents. And companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed him that it is custom of Kings of his era to put a seal on letters. As in following Hadith reveals: “Anas reported that when Allah's Apostle decided to write (letters) to non-Arabs it was said to him that the non-Arabs would not accept a letter but that having a seal (i.e. خَاتِمٌ) over it; so he (the Holy Prophet) got a silver ring made. He (Anas) said: I perceive as if I am looking at its brightness in his hand.” [Ref: Muslim, B24, H5217] Typically after writing of letter finished a wax seal at the end was put to indicate completion of letter. If the content was secret then it was roled and on the joint wax was poured and then embossed with stamp. In first case to ensure no new additions were made to content of letter and in second to prevent the information to come out. In this context it becomes obvious Khaatam means denotes meaning of sealing to prevent new additions to letter and sealed prevent information from being leaked. Thus Khaat’m carries the meaning of sealing to prevent additions and sealing to prevent leak of information. 0.4 - Prophetic Explanation Of Khaat’m: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he is al-Aqib and there is no Prophet after him: “Jubair b. Mut'im reported on the authority of his father that he heard Allah's Messenger as saying: I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am al-Mahi (the obliterator) by whom unbelief would be obliterated, and I am Hashir (the gatherer) at whose feet mankind will be gathered, i) and I am Aqib, ii) after whom there will be no Prophet.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5810] al-Aqib means subsequent, successive, in other words; one who comes at the end of long list, thus it carrys meaning of last/final. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) defined what he intended by al-Aqib by saying, after whom there will be no Prophet. A Hadith in Muslim records how Imam Zuhri (rahimullah) understood al-Aqib: “This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar (and the words are): I said to Zuhri: What does (the word) al-'Aqib imply? He said: One after whom there is no Prophet, and in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar and 'Uqail there is a slight variation of wording.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5812] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, I am al-Aqib, after whom there will be no Prophet and Imam Zuhri (rahimullah) said al-Aqib means, after whom there is no Prophet. This reveals the second prophetic statement was further explanation of al-Aqib and not a separate unrelated statement. Please take note of how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) further explained the meaning of al-Aqib because this Sunnah will be repeated in next Hadith. In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained the meaning of word Khaatam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the Khaatam of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was aware that there will be people who will distort the natural meaning of Khaatam so he made the following statement; there is no Prophet after me, to pin point Khaatam’s (i.e. last/final) intended meaning. Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: I am Khaatam of Prophets. He stated this in context of his saying; there will be thirty impostors claiming to be Prophets after him. If he is the last Prophet and thirty men from his Ummah claim to be Prophets after him then by default they are impostors because they claim to be something which they cannot be. This logical deduction established the meaning of Khaatam to mean last/final. 0.5 - Commentary On Prophet Not Being Father Of Adult Man: It was customs of Arabs to not to marry the divorcees of their biological sons. The verse Khatamiyyah was revealed in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wanting to marry divorcee of his adopted son Zaid Ibn Harith (radiallah ta’ala anhu). The polytheists and the hypocrites took this as opportunity to malign the character of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saying; he has married wife of his son. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed the verse in response to this compaign saying: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men …” [Ref: 33:40] Meaning Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not biological father of any adult male to imply that the compaign to malign him is without foundation. 0.6 - Commentary On Verse Of Khaatamiyyah: Prophet-hood Is In Bloodline: In the preceding verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “… but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the khaat’m of the Prophets ...” [Ref: 33:40] Question begs to be asked: Why would Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declare that his beloved Prophet is Khaat’m of the Prophets in a apparently unrelated incident? The obvious answer is in the following Hadith: “Narrated Ismail: I asked Abi Aufa: "Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet?" He said: "Yes, but he died in his early childhood. Had there been a Prophet after Muhammad then his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H214] The negation of adult biological son in the verse and affirmation of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Khaat’m of the Prophets is to convey the meaning; the line of Prophe-thood is through bloodline. In other words Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not have a biological adult son because Prophet-hood would have been through his bloodline yet he is the last/end of the Prophets. Implying that prophetic bloodline has to come to end too for Prophet-hood to come to an end. And if he had biological adult son then bloodline would continue and so would have Prophet-hood. Following Hadith also supports the point established via reasoning: “It was narrated that Ibn Abbas said: ‘Then Ibrahim the son of the Messenger of Allah died, the Messenger of Allah prayed and said: ‘He has a wet-nurse in Paradise, and if he had lived he would have been a Siddiq and a Prophet. If he had lived his maternal uncles, the Egyptians, would have been set free and no Egyptian would ever have been enslaved.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1511] Implication of which is, bloodline of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) came to an end, therefore Prophet-hood ended with Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 0.7 - Verse Of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen In Understanding Of Commentators: Commentary of companion Ibn al-Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) interprets the verse of Khaatamiyyah as following: “(Muhammad is not the father of any man among you …) such as Zayd (… but he is the Messenger of Allah …) but Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (… and the seal of the Prophets …) with him Allah has sealed the advent of prophets; such that there is no prophet after him (… and Allah is Aware of all things …) of your words and works.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 33:40, here] In Tafsir al Jalalayn of Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (rahimullah) Khaatam al-Nabiyeen conveys the exact meaning of Ibn al-Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “… (… but …) he is (… the Messenger of God and the seal of the Prophets …) And so he will not have a son that is a fully grown man to be a prophet after him. A variant reading for khātim al-nabiyyīna has khātam al-nabiyyīn as in the instrument known as a ‘seal’ in other words their prophethood has been sealed by him. And God has knowledge of all things among these is the fact that there will be no prophet after him and even when the master Jesus descends at the end of days he will rule according to his Muhammad’s law.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 33:40, here] Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) conveys the same meaning also in his commentary: “(but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.) This is like the Ayah: (Allah knows best with whom to place His Message.) (6:124) This Ayah clearly states that there will be no Prophet after him. If there will be no Prophet after him then there will surely be no Messenger after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case.'' [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Kathir, 33:40, here] 0.8 - What Some Of Other Commentators Stated On Verse Of Khatamiyyah: Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (rahimullah) in his commentary Jami al-Bayan under the verse in discussion reduced the meaning of Khaatam al-Nabiyeen to Akhar al-Nabiyeen (i.e. last/end of the Prophets). The famous Mutazali gramarian al-Zamashkari in his Tafsir al-Kashf stated Khaatam is in meaning of al-Taba’a (i.e. last) and al-Khatm (i.e. end), and in meaning of Khatm al-Nabiyeen (i.e. end of the Prophets). In Tafsir al-Kabir, Imam Fakhr al-Din Raazi (rahimullah) while alluding to completion/perfection of religion of Islam stated that if there was another Prophet to follow after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then some aspect of Islam would have been incomplete which a later Prophet would have perfected/completed. Alluding to the fact that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has completed/perfected Islam therefore there is no need for sending of Prophet after him. Thus in his unique fashion Imam (rahimullah) affirmed that Khaat’m means last/final and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last/final of the Prophets. Imam Ibn Jawzi (rahimullah) stated in his Zaad ul-Masir that if Khaat’m is recited as Khaatim then it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has ended the line of Prophets. And if Khaat’m is recited as Khaatam then it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last Prophet. Imam Mahmood Nasfi (rahimullah) stated in his Tafsir Madarik al-Tanzeel that Khatam al-Nabiyeen means in line of Prophets Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the last Prophet. No one will be appointed as a Prophet after him. End. Every single commentator of Quran has interpreted the verse of Khatamiyyah to denote end of Prophet-hood after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and there will be no more new Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 1.0 - Refuting The Liar And Impostor Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani: Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) there will be no Prophet nor a Messenger after him: “Anas bin Malik narrated: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Indeed Messenger-ship and Prophet-hood have been terminated, so there shall be no Messenger after me, nor a Prophet.' He (Anas) said: "The people were concerned about that, so he said: 'But there will be Mubashirat.' So they said: 'O Messenger of Allah! What is Mubashirat?' He said: 'The Muslim's dreams, for it is a portion of the portions of Prophet-hood.'" [Ref” Tirmadhi, B8, H2272] Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen, as well as Khatam al-Rusul. After him there is no Prophet, and no Messenger. In other Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet said: The last hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an Rasool of Allah." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B37, H4319] "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The last hour would not come until there would arise about thirty Dajjals (i.e. impostors), Kadhabs (i.e. liars), and each one of them would claim that he is a Rasool (Messenger) of Allah." [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6988] Even though these people claim to be Messengers of God but the reality is there cannot be a Prophet, nor a Messenger, therefore their claims prove they are liars, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, upon whom be curse of Allah, is one from these thirty [minor] Dajjals and Kadhabs. 2.0 - Prophets And Messengers Are Distinguished By Principles: These are some principles which need to be understood, and remembered, they are crucial in understanding why, and how Prophet Muhammed is Last Prophet as well as Messenger: i) Some humans were sent as Prophets and as Messengers, ii) and some humans were only sent as Prophets. In other words it means: i) Every Messenger is Prophet also, ii) but every Prophet is not Messenger. In conclusion it can be said there are two types of Prophets: i) Nabi, ii) Nabi Rasool: The differences between: i) Nabi: Receives revelation, but receives no Book, communicates with Allah directly from behind a curtain, or indirectly via angle, and rank is lower then Rasool. ii) Nabi Rasool: Receives revelation, as well as Book, communicates with Allah directly from behind a curtain, or indirectly via angle, and is of highiest rank. Following is example of some Prophets belonging to each category: i) Nabi: Haroon, Sulayman, Yaqoob, Jonah, Ismail, Is'haq. ii) Nabi Rasool: Ibrahim, Dawood, Musa, Isa, Muhammed.[1] 3.0 - Rashid Khalifah, Impostor And Liar, Refuting His Taweel: With meaning of Khaat’m decided, we come to conclusion that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last, final, and he has sealed the door of Prophet-hood and there cannot be another Prophet after him. By default, the door of Messengership has been closed by ending/sealing arrival of Prophets because every Messenger is a Prophet. Some humans were just Prophets and some were Prophet-Messengers therefore if a Messenger was to be born after RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Messenger should also be a Prophet. And according to the verse of Khatamiyyah another new Prophet cannot come after Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the Kha'tm of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” [Ref: 33:40] Another way of understanding the verse would be is when something inferior is prohibited the greater then it is automatically prohibited. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the believers: “And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them, "uff," and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word.” [Ref: 17:23] Do not say show dislike, or displeasure to parents. This verse prohibits the lowest and level of displeasure anything greater then that is by default prohibited. Now when it has become evident that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated the lower rank of Nabi has been ended/sealed then by default the greater rank of Nabi-Rasool sealed/ended. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made following statement narrated in a Hadith: “Anas bin Malik narrated: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Indeed Messenger-ship and Prophet-hood have been terminated, so there shall be no Messenger after me, nor a Prophet.' He (Anas) said: "The people were concerned about that, so he said: 'But there will be Mubashirat.' So they said: 'O Messenger of Allah! What is Mubashirat?' He said: 'The Muslim's dreams, for it is a portion of the portions of Prophet-hood.'" [Ref” Tirmadhi, B8, H2272] Statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been understood as an explanation of verse of Khatamiyyah. And my explanation of verse details, explains how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) understood the verse of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen and makes clear the reason he made the statement recorded in Hadith. In addition it explains why and how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen and Khaat’m al-Rusul. And why Taweel of Rashid Khalifa is invalid. Conclusion: Word Khaat’m in Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen is recited with Fat-ha and Kasra. Both readings accord the prophetic explanation, mentioned in Ahadith, and produce understanding, there is no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The Arabic gramarians and commentators of Quran have given meaning of Akhar al-Nabiyeen to Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen. In addition to this scholars have stated every Messenger is Prophet as well but not every Prophet is Messenger. And Messenger ranks higher then a Prophet. Principle is when lesser is prohibited then greater is automatically prohibited. When this information is computed with meaning of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen the result is; Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not only the last and final Prophet but he is also final Messenger from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this is in agreement with prophetic saying, there will be no Messenger and Prophet after me. In other Ahadith he said after him some thirty liars and minor Dajjals will claim Prophet-hood from his Ummah. In light of this all the men/women who claimed Prophet-hood or Messenger-ship after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are liars and minor Dajjals. This includes the chief of disbelievers, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, upon him be curse of Allah, and Rashid Khalifah, and Elijah Muhammad of Nation Of Islam. Wama Alayna Ilal Balaghul Mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razvi FootNotes: - [1] These principles were derived by great scholars of Islam and are universally accepted as valid by all sects of Muslims. Those who wish to test them can verify them by analysing Quran, and Ahadith. This is a time consuming, and very detailed analysis, which would be too detailed to casual readers, those who are interested in authenticating these rules are more then welcome to investigate, and if any anamolies apear I would gladly provide further evidence from Quran and Ahadith to remove doubts.

Salam alayqum, Kameel ka mana akmal, kamil heh ... yehni bey-nuqs. Kameel nam rakh saktay hen ... behtr Abdul Kameel hoga ... is kay ilawa bi rakh saktay hen.

Jin bandoon ka dil murda ho us ko zinda taweez ganda nahin kar sakta aur nah ilm aur samjaya ja sakta heh ... joh insaan ka bacha heh us mein ihsaas aur compassion fitrati heh ... janab ko apni pari heh ... woh buzurg joh tarp rahay hen un ki nahin ... janab khud pait bar khanay aur auroon ko bhook ki ihsaas nah karnay waloon mein say hen ... esoon kay mutaliq Islam mein kuch hota bi toh Islam kuch nahin kar sakta. Walden ko kahen kay khud aa kar mil leeya keren.

Yeh neechay wali teen posts hen:

Salam alayqum, meri posts in thread mein hen, un ko peren, wazahat mojood heh.

Aik toh Ghareeboob ki ghurbat phook biyas ki waja say un ka waqar aur izzat achay aur buray ki tameez jaati rahi ... aur dosri taraf pesay walay maldaroon say Nabi e kareem ki Sunnat ... ameeron ko khilao aur ghareeboon say platenh saaf karwaho ... aah kar joh bacha heh playtoon mein woh leh jao aur khao aur khilao ... joh Musalman bhai bhai hen aur bhen bhen hen ... un kay ghareeb bhen bhai muntazir hen kay ameer bhai aur bhen plate mein kuch choren gay toh ham khaen gay aur bachoon ko khilahen gay ... jis izzat aur waqar ki khatir namaz ko pochnay ki khatir dornay say mana heh ... woh plate mein bachi kuchi hadiyoon aur tuqroon ki khatir nilam heh ... dukh ki baat heh ... kay ghareeb kharay hoon ... aur roz roz das bandoon ka khana khaanay walay kha rahay hoon ... yeh sab murda dil aur zameer logh kar saktay hen aur dekh saktay hen ... jis qaum kay aam logh esay bey-his aur bey-dill hen un ki qutb ul aftab kism kay leaders nahin milnay walay. kameenoon mein kameena raja aur bey-deenoon mein bey'deen. bey-parwa bey-dill bey-zameeroon mein unneeh jaisa NAWAZ SHAREEF. ZARDARI. IMRAN KHAN. BILAWAL. waghayra ... jistera musalman ko musalman ki nahin hakim ki awaam ki izzat maal jaan phook piyas ki qadr nahin ... jesay banday wesay leader ...

Mein browse kar raha thah ... idhar http://www.islamieducation.com/the-prophets-knowledge-of-the-unseen/ Toh yeh parnay ko mila ... joh bey-adabi heh ...

Bhai sahib har Hadith ka zahiri mana nahin leeya jata ... urf mein shararti bachay ko ... yeh bara shaytan heh ... matlab shararti heh ... shaytan yehni Kafir Jinn aag say bana aur oonth aur tamam janwar parinday mitti say ... phir munasbat kahan huwi. Aur har Hadith Sahih bi nahin hoti.

Salam alayqum, Kuch puranay zamanoon kay Ulamah nay lughvi ihtibar say Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) say ilfaaz Hadhir Nazir ko bura jana [keun kay jism aur jismaniat sabat karta heh aur dekhnay ko ankh ka mohtaj banata heh aur Allah in say paak heh] aur kuch Ulamah nay taweel kay saath jaiz mana aur kaha kay agar kohi in ilfaaz kay zahiri lughvi mafoom ko dar guzr karay aur woh mana mutayyin karay joh Allah ki shaan kay laykh hen yehni hadhir Allah ki shaan kay layk hona aur nazir baghayr ankh hona aur baghayr sooraj ki roshini mana jahay toh jaiz heh. Hasil yeh heh kay jinoon nay bura jana unoon nay lafzi manoon ki wajah say aur jinoon nay jaiz unoon nay taweel ki waja say. Abh atay hen Jaa al-Haq ki ibarat ki taraf; Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko joh HAR JAGA Hadhir Nazir manay woh bila shak o shuba zindeeq balkay Kafir heh. Magr joh Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko jaga aur har jaga ki qaid kay baghayr Hadhir Nazir manay woh toh Musalman heh. Bandoon ko ibaraat parnay ki bi samaj nahin aur fatweh Shaykh ul-Islamoon ki shaan kay layk detay hen. Sayyidi Ala Hadrat kay walid e moteram nay joh baat likhi unoon nay lafzi mafoom mein likhi ... keun kay lafzi mafoom mein Allah ko Hazir Nazir manna yeh mana rakhta heh woh jism aur makhlooq mein mojood heh aur qaynaat kay har hissay mein wujud rakhta heh.

Salam alayqum, Is section mein Abdul Salam sahib ko meri taraf say aik jawab likha gaya thah joh idhar nahin. Yehni in ki akhiri post kay baad mera aik jawab thah ... jis ko kissi waja say delete kar deeya gaya ya forum update karteh huway delete ho gahi. Please check keren aur restore kar denh. 2012/2013 mein post keeya thah.