MuhammedAli

Janab IQRAR sahib Salam alayqum wr wb, Allah ta'ala aap ko hidayat deh aur samajnay kee tohfeeq deh. Masla simple aur wazia heh meray baee, aur wazahat ho chuki heh, baqi aap kee marzi heh, maneh ya nah maneh.

Is meh tarmeem ker denh, yeh kuffr heh, ghalti say e likh deeh: Door raho sab be'eman, farmaya Rab e Rahman. Correct yeh heh: Door raho sab be'eman, farmaya Rab Rahman.

1) Pehli baat yeh heh kay us ka naam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab aka Seikhun Najd. Meri tehqeeq kay mutabiq kafir thah. Keun kay Allah ta'ala nay Nabi nay farmaya kay mashrik kee taraf kuffr ka giro heh ... Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The main source of disbelief is in the east. Pride and arrogance are characteristics of the owners of horses and camels, and those bedouins who are busy with their camels and pay no attention to Religion; while modesty and gentleness are the characteristics of the owners of sheep." [Ref:bukhari, Book #54, Hadith #520) Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Najd say nikla joh biqul Mashrik ka ilaqa heh aur jistera RasoolAllah nay bataya thah kay yeh mushrikoon ko chor ker musalmanoon ko qatal keren gay, Is Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab aur is kay muwahideen nay esa hee keeya. Hadith meh heh: Narrated `Abdullah: Allah's Messenger () said, "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (i.e., an evil-doing), and killing him is Kufr (disbelief). bukhari, Book 73, Hadith 70 Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: The Prophet () said, "After me (i.e. after my death), do not become disbelievers, by striking (cutting) the necks of one another. bukhari, Book 83, Hadith 7 Is say sabat ho jata heh kay musalman ko marna kuffr heh aur marnay wala kafir heh. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab nay bila waja Musalmanoon per Shirk ka ilzam laga ker musalmanoon kay qatal ko jaiz keeya. Bilqul is'see Seikh e Najd jesi harqat Khawarij nay kee thee Hazrat Ali radiallah ta'ala anhu kay khilaf. unoon nay Hazrat Ali radiallah ta'ala anho ko shirk ka ilzaam deeya aur mushrik tehra ker Hazrat Ali kay khilaf jang kee. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab nay be bilqul esa keeya halan kay ahadith say sabat kay kay RasoolAllah ka farmaan heh kay Arabia meh buttoon kee pooja nahin hogi. Mahirbani ker kay English section meh Kitab ut Tawheed kay ek chapter per english meh article heh us meh is hadth kee tafseel mojood heh. Abh sabat huwa kay ARabia meh Shirk nahin hoga aur Muhammad bin abdul Wahhab ka ilzaam aur us kay pero qaroon ka ilzam e Shirk ghalt thah. Kissa mukhtasar, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab aur us kay jitnay be 'muwahideen' ki fojh kafir thay aur jinoon nay in kafiroon ka qatal keeya Allah ta'ala un ko jaza e khair deh ga jistera RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi was'sallam nay khabr dee thee: Narrated 'Ali:I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection." [Bukhari, Book 56, Number 808] Balkay ahadith say sabat heh kay Rasoolallah sallallahu alayhi was'sallam agar is Najdi fitna ko milta toh khud qatal e aam kertay: Abu Said Khudri reported that 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) sent some gold alloyed with dust to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) distributed that among four men, al-Aqra b. Habis Hanzali and Uyaina b. Badr al-Fazari and 'Alqama b. 'Ulatha al-'Amiri, then to one person of the tribe of Kilab and to Zaid al-Khair al-Ta'l, and then to one person of the tribe of Nabhan. Upon this the people of Quraish felt angry and said: He (the Holy Prophet) gave to the chiefs of Najd and ignored us. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have done it with a view to con- cillating them. Then there came a person with thick beard, prominent cheeks, deep sunken eyes and protruding forehead and shaven head. He said: Muhammad, fear Allah. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If I disobey Allah, who would then obey Him? Have I not been (sent as the) most trustworthy among the people of the-world? -but you do not repose trust in me. That person then went back. A person among the people then sought permission (from the Holy Prophet) for his murder. According to some, it was Khalid b. Walid who sought the permission. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: From this very person's posterity there would arise people who would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throat; they would kill the followers of Islam and would spare the idol-worshippers. They would glance through the teachings of Islam so hurriedly just as the arrow passes through the pray. If I were to ever find them I would kill them like 'Ad. Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2318: Kissa mukhtasar, Musalman ko marna kuffr, aur marnay wala kafir heh. RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi was'sallam nay musalman ko marnay say mana farmaya heh, magar Mashriki Najdi fitna kay qatal ka hokam deh ker sabat ker deeya kay yeh ahle kuffr thay aur in kay kafir honay kee waja say in ka qatal e aam jaiz aur sawab thah. Seikh e Najd aur us kay joh hawari thay un ka qatal jaiz irtad kee bunyad per banta heh. Pehlay toh musalman hoon magar phir kuffr ker kay kafir ho jahen aur murtaq kee sazza maut heh. Joh us kay kuffria nazriat per ilm nah rakhta ho magar us ko alim e saleh janeh gumra heh. Aur joh us kay aqahid o nazriat per ilm rakhta ho aur us nay nazriat ko qabool kerta ho aur musalmanoon ko Mushrik (i.e. yehni esa kafir joh auroon ko zaat o sifat meh Allah ka ham martba janay) janay aur manay, bila shak o shuba kafir heh. Joh Musalmanoon kay khoon ko halal janay jistera Seikh e Najd nay halal jana, aur musalmanoon kay khoon say haath rangay hoon jistera Seikh e Najd aur us kay 'muwahideen' kay rangay thay farman e RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi was'sallam kay mutabiq kuffr ka murtaqib aur kafir heh. Joh Ismail Dehalvi ya kissi aur Wahhabi maulvi kee ibarat e kuffria ka ilm rakhta ho aur un ko khilaf e adaab e risalat nah janay balkay towheed kee tarjumani samjay aur us ko hujjat ihtimam ker dee gaee ho toh woh be kafir, murtad heh. Magar Wahhabiyoon meh be ek esa tabqa heh jissay Wahhabiat kay nazriat ka ilm nahin woh bicharay sirf bunyadi ilm rakhtay hen, Tawheed, risalat namaz roza hajj aur us kay ilawa kissi aur ka nahin aur apni rozi roti meh masroof rehtay hen aur un meh joh upper wali qualities nahin hen yehni musalmanoon ko qatal kerna, mushrik janna aur manna, aur nah woh apnay amal aur zuban say ahle Sunnat kay nazriat ilm e ghayb, RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi was'sallam kay shahid honay ka inqar nahin kertay. Aur Ismail Dehalvi jesay deegir gustakh maulviyoon kee ibarat meh gustakhi kay qail hoon aur ibarat say nafrat keren, aur essee ibarat sun ker khof e khuda meh un ka dil kampay aur woh us ka izhar keren, toh woh zeroor musalman hen. Alhasil, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab kay kuffr meh shak kee waja dekhi jahay gee. Kia woh Kuffr ka munkir is wastay heh kay woh us kee talimat o amaal ko Quran o Sunnat kee tarjumani samajta heh ya nahin. Agar kohi us kay amal o nazirat ko Quran o Sunnat kee tarjumani samjay aur us ka musalmanoon ko mushrik aur qatal kerna jaiz manay toh phir zeroor kafir heh. Aur agar is ko ilm hee nahin nazriat ka sirf la ilmi kee waja say us ko saleh muttaqi prezgar samajta heh aur kufr ka qail nahin, aur apnay aap ko us say mansoob kerta heh toh esa banda kafir nahin.

Excellent my brother, brilliant work, may Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala reward you imensely. If these Deobandi's had any sense and know what is good for them they wouldnt dare to point at Ahle Sunnat critically. But this foolish led by foolish maulvis who use less brain then a average ant does in a day. My brothers, due to your efforts on this forum you have greatly improved their Deobandi-ism. Gradually I can feel due to your efforts these foolish Wahhabinised neo-Hanafis are beginning to learn about the creed of their scholars and have began to evolve. If Allah wills these people will eventually represent the the aqeedah of Ahle Sunnat, maybe in fifty years or so. I have noticed evolution of Deobandi-ism from being strickly opposed to Ahle Sunnat in every aspect. To gradually discovering what their elders believed and reinstating the belief of their elders as there beliefs. Keep up the excellent work.

Also the issue of people carrying the idols under the arm pits is absolutely none sense and Maulana sahib correctly has stated that Sahabah would not carry the idols and the munafiqeen did not carry them either. Infact the munafiqeen pretend to be more pious muslims then the Sahabah in presence of prophet sallalahu alayhi was'sallam. Importantly the issue of performing raf ul yadain in ruku and coming out of ruku is not a fundamental issue. It is a issue of ijtihad, and those who fallow the mujtahideen and as result they raf ul yadain going into and coming out of ruku are forgiven. But a layman who performs raf ul yadain without taqleed of a mujtahid he is sinful because mujtahid is forgiven his errors mujtahid still gets reward even if he makes wrong judgement but a normal person is sinful if he makes a wrong judgement. Naturally those who fallow the ulil amr yehni mujtahideen for them there is no punishment for following the error of mujtahid because Allah subhanahu wa ta;ala has stated: obey Allah and RasoolAllah and the ulil amr therefore general public are to fallow ulil amr, and if ulil amr differ with each other they are to refer to their difference of opinion to hadith and Quran but we the general public are instructed to fallow the ulil amr mujtahideen and by following ulil amr mujtahideen we obey the command of Allah subhanahu wa taala therefore there is no sin upon us and we will be rewarded as the mujtahid will be rewarded.

As salamu alayqum wr wb, My dear brother, Maualana Ishaq is correct to say that Prophet sallallahu alayhi was'sallam did not say that Raf ul yadain is action of mischevious horses. People who say Raf ul Yadain is action of mischevious horses are incorrect but there is proof in the hadith that we must be still in our prayers because Prophet said be still and not like the mischevious horses. so the importnt aspect is that being still in prayers and performing Raf ul Yadain in one aspect goes against the instruction of stillness. But again going to ruku and coming out of ruku, going to Sajdah and coming out of Sajda are movements which go against the prophetic instruction of being still in prayers. So really there is no definitive answer on if the prophetic instruction of stillness applies to raf ul yadain, its only my understanding which anyone can turn over as I have demonstrated. The other important points, Maulana Ishaq sahib may Allah forgive him was someone I respect for his sincerity and tolerance but even he at times has made mistakes due to his affiliation with the ahle hadith, therefore certain amount of natural bais will be part of his response always just as it will be part of me. Maulana Sahib states that there is no evidence that Raf Ul Yadain was cancelled is factually incorrect. What Maulana Sahib believes is that there is no explicit statement in which Prophet sallalahu alayhi was'sallam has stated that raf ul yadain is abrogated. This is true, there is no such explicit evidence but there is implicit evidence which establishes raf ul yadain is abrogated. Let me illustrate my point. I say to my son; "please, get me glass of water." just as he is about to get me water i say; "son no, get me orange juice." Have I abrogated my first command with the second command? I believe my brother I have abrogated even though i have not explicitly stated; MY SON, MY FIRST ORDER OF GETTING ME WATER IS ABROGATED GET ME ORANGE JUICE INSTEAD OF WATER. You would understand that my second command abrogates my first command even if i dont say my first command is abrogated. Similarly at earlier stage Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) did perform raf ul yadain but later on abandoned the practice and performed raf ul yadain only in the beginning of the salah and not while going into and comming out of ruku. His abandoning the raf ul yadain later on is indication that it was abrogated. Many ahadith actually indicate Prophet salllalahua layhi was'sallam performed raf ul yadain and then other ahadith also prove that he did not perform raf ul yadain. Here are some ahadith: Narrated Muhammad bin `Amr bin `Ata': I was sitting with some of the companions of Allah's Messenger () and we were discussing about the way of praying of the Prophet. Abu Humaid As-Sa`idi said, "I remember the prayer of Allah's Messenger () better than any one of you. I saw him raising both his hands up to the level of the shoulders on saying the Takbir; and on bowing he placed his hands on both knees and bent his back straight, then he stood up straight from bowing till all the vertebrate took their normal positions. In prostrations, he placed both his hands on the ground with the forearms away from the ground and away from his body, and his toes were facing the Qibla. On sitting In the second rak`a he sat on his left foot and propped up the right one; and in the last rak`a he pushed his left foot forward and kept the other foot propped up and sat over the buttocks." [bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 12, Hadith 79] One hadith that comes to my mind is; He raised his hands once in the beginning. Some narrated: (raised his hands) once only." [Ref: Abu Dawood, Boook 2, Hadith 748] It was narrated that 'Uqbah bin 'Amir said: "Shall I not show you how I saw the Messenger of Allah () pray?" We said: "Yes." So he stood up and when he bowed, he placed his palms on his knees and put his fingers behind his knees, and held his arms out from his sides, until every part of him settled. Then he raised his head and stood up until every part of him settled. Then he prostrated and held his arms out from his sides, until every part of him settled. Then he sat up until every part of him settled. Then he prostrated again until every part of him settled. Then he did four rak'ahs like that. Then he said: "This is how I saw the Messenger of Allah () pray, and this is how he used to lead us in prayer." (Hasan) [Ref: Sunan Nisa'i, Vol. 2, Book 12, Hadith 1038] So brother, there is proof that Prophet sallallahu alayhi was'sallam did perform raf ul yadain and there is proof that he did not perform raf ul yadain going into and comming out of ruku. We have to reconcile the differences based on logical and rational sense and best way to reconcile these contradiction is to believe Prophet sallallahu alayhi was sallam performed raf ul yadain going into ruku and comming out of ruku but then later abandoned the practice. Maulvi Sahib in the video states that there is no proof Raf ul yadain was cancelled but this is bias. Note raf ul yadain going into ruku and coming out of ruku was also a Sunnah but the ahadith prove that it was cancelled. Point is eliments within Salah were abrogted, infact Raf ul yadain going into and coming out of sajda itselt was abrogated and the hadith prove so. My advice brother, if one wishes for absolutely clear evidence to decide on a matter then many people will be waiting to do many deeds of piety because there is no proof for doing so. Is there explicit clear proof that we can recite bismillah when we are about to drive a car? Or explaination that; it is sunnah which can be formed anywhere is sufficent enough to justify recting of bismillah before driving car? Should we wait for EXPLICIT PROOF to do this act or go with the less established evidence? Point is my brother we have to judge the actuality of a matter on the plausibility of the explanation. Otherwise we will never get definitive proofs for anything, there is no Nabi after Prophet sallallahu alayhi was'sallam accept a dajjal claiming to be a nabi. Therefore we have to make the best out of the evidence we have and judge issues which are difficult to clearly determine on the basis of plausibility of the explanations given and the explanation given I believe is plausible explaination. My brother, we should not take everything from a scholar, when we start blindly adhering to teachings of scholars and we absolutely agree with everything a scholar has stated you should realize that you have not excercised your own reason. Instead you have adhered to what you have been told without questioning. Therefore i urge you to question what Maulvi Ishaq has stated and what I have stated and use your own ability to reason to judge a balanced understanding. You have one chance in this life to make best for your aakhira and do not waste it by not excercising your ability to reason. I believe if a Muslim is sincere in seeking guidance and truly wishes to be guided and strives to learn for sake of guidance, such a person Allah will not cause his death upon misguidance, Allah will open the gates of guidance for such a sincere truth seeker. You just have to devote your time to learning as you devote your time for dunya. With right balance inshallah you will be successful in dunya and aakhira. wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: While browsing youtube to reasearch in depth the Khariji belief of Muslims worshiping idols. I stumbled upon the video of Maulvi Ishaq where he discussed his Wahhabi sects belief of, Muslims worshiping graves. He states, all the effort to promote Tawheed and eradicate [major] Shirk from Muslims would be in vain if Ahle Sunnat’s evidence against his sects belief is not satisfactorily explained. He was refering to words of Prophet (sallalalhu alayhi was’sallam); he is not afraid of Muslims associating partners others with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[1] He also quoted the hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam); the day of judgement will not come until tribes of my Ummah worship idols[2] and commented that just as we are in difficult position in light of your evidence you too should have to explain our [Wahhabi] evidence. In the comment section Khadam left a brief reply[3] in the hope of inspiring someone to seek clarification. The brother who uploaded the video replied[4] to my comment stating; Prophet (sallalalahu alayhi was’sallam) has stated, my Ummat will commit Shirk, and my Wahhabi brother capitalized the words MERI UMMAT to indicate explicitness evidence that Ummat will Shirk. He preceded to question; will these people be part of Ummat or not part of Ummat and ended with request for clarification. There is factual error in his statement the hadith does not say MY UMMAT will committ Shirk but it says; tribes of my Ummat will worship idols. Note the change of meaning from entire Ummat to tribes within Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). I responded to the brother in the comment section addressing his points in detail[5] but without quoting any evidence for my understanding. Hence Khadam sent him links of artilces which discuss the evidences in detail with the hope and requested him to refer the issue to a Wahhabi ahlul ilm to refute the content of articles and brother replied with the message below[6]. Wahhabi Brothers Reply: Dear brother, As salam o alaikium, it was a great pleasure to see my brother's messege in my inbox. Thank you for your concern brother Muhammad Ali. Brother its quite similiar that you have been researching on islamic issues as i used to when i was at the age of 17 now i'm 32. I believe nothing goes is wrong if we have difference of opinions. This is in fact state of mind how it comprehends. If we glance our 4 aaima karam, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shaf'iee and Ahamd bin Hanbal (rahmahumallahaley) they had different opinions contrary. For instance Quran's ayat; “Aulaa Mastam'ma Un Nisaa" aur jab tum aurtoon ko choo'o, on this ayat Imam Shafi takes literally, if someone touches woman he has to do Ghusl, but Imam Abu Hanifa differes, he says, TOUCH doesnt mean litreally touch it means having intercourse with spouse. Now the question is, can we put fatwa on Shafi or on Abu Hanifa that either of them is ignorant! NO, we cannot this is their understanding and both have strong plea, contention and proof. So dear brother if you have different opinion why Should I disrespect you? Maybe you have better understanding than I have you might have strong senses to understand the substance. Intellectual people do not fight, rather they render their views, whoever of them have strong contentions would automatcally be valued. Comming to the topic, brother, what I learned about shirk is, RasoolAllah sallallau alayhi was’sallam anticipations anticipated Shirk. 1) He said "meri ummat par tamam halat bani israeel jesy ayenge qadam ba qadam meri ummat bani israeel ki perwi kary gi" (bukahri) I ask you a question , didn't Bani israeel do Shirk? Secondly brother, Quran is more authentic than ahadees, in Surah Yusuf ayat 106 Allah says; "yeh log eman nahi laty magr kisi na kisi nau ka shirk karty hove" and word shirk is also used in soorah jasia; "aye nabi ap ne dekha nahi us shkhs ko jo apny nafs ko poojta hai" Hope we'll have a Ilmi discussion brother As salam o lakaium. Adressing General Content Of Wahhabi Brother: My brother, your tolerance of difference of opinion is commendable and indeed it is we Muslims should be tolerant of each others opinions which are in realm of valid ikhtilaf. You have referenced the differences between the Imam of the four madhabs and rehetoricaly questioned; “… can we put fatwa on Shafi or on Abu Hanifa that either of them is ignorant!” Before I reply to your rehetorical questioning it is best that the difference between Imams is adressed. The issue which you have brought up is valid form of difference of opinion because the verse of Quran does not explicitly indicate sexual touch and does state a explicit touch. Nature of Quran is jawami al kalim meaning short with comprehensiveness of meaning. Based on this my understanding of verse is; wudu is invalidated by sexual touch as well as regular touch but being muqallid of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) I adhere to his madhab. Coming to your rehetorical statement. I agree that we cannot charge these Imams of heresy, or innovation, or being ignorant of Quran and Sunnah. These four Imams were Mujtahideen and even there errors in Ijtihad are reward worthy according to the hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) but this does not mean they are above justified criticism. Also note their ikhtilaf was on fiqhi juzzi’at (i.e. fiqhi details) and these differences are not fundamental to ones creed. Our difference is fundamental in nature, it’s of Islam or Kufr. If you are correct with your understanding then; we the Ahle Sunnat are idol worshipers, grave worshipers, saint worshipers, in other words we are guilty of major Shirk becaue we worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). That means in your creed I and the those who follow the creed of Ahle Sunnat are Mushrik and a Mushrik is a Kafir who associates a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Technically a Mushrik is worst then a Kafir. In fact, according to the sect which you fallow; we the Ahle Sunnat are not only Mushrikeen, we are worst then the Mushrikeen of Arabia, who lived in the time of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam); “The fourth principle is; that the mushrikeen of our time are worse in their shirk than the mushrikeen who came before. This is because those who came before committed shirk during times of ease and made their worship purely for Allaah during times of difficulty.” [Ref: Qawaid Al Araba, by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab] Now if the understanding of Ahle Sunnat is correct and your understanding is wrong. Then anyone who accuses the members of Ahle Sunnat of being idol worshipers, grave worshipers, Mushrikeen or Mushrikeen worse then Mushrikeen of Arabia, is a disbeliever because unjustified takfir returns to one has accused another of kufr. Like on all the issues of creed on this issue of Muslim worshiping idols there is no possibility of valid difference of opinion, there is only one correct opinion and other is batal, end off. We cannot argue for the possibility of valid ikhtilaf in matters of creed. Imagine, someone deduces from this verse and believes that Iblees was an angel: “And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam.". And they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused and was proud, and was one of the disbelievers.” [Ref: 2:34] Another person who takes another verse of Quran and believes Iblees was a Jinn: “Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam." They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny…” [Ref: 18:50] Woud this be valid difference of opinion or you do you believe it to be issue of Islam or Kufr? Its an issue of Islam or Kufr nothing less and due to this fact we will have to reconcile the two verses in a fashion they present a single meaning and cannot term it valid difference of opinion. Brother, criticising ones understanding of Quran or Hadith in no way insinuates disrespect of an individual and by you criticising what has been written you do not disrespect me. If criticising work of another to point out the faults, errors, is disrespect then who is more disrespectful then the firqa Wahhabiyyah of subcontinent? As long as we remain within the boundary of respect, and we do not resort to abuse, then we criticise each others research without warranting disrespect. Importantly criticism of a righteous Muslim is not to humiliate, disrespect his opponent but a righteous Muslim criticises his Muslim brother or sister with intention that his criticism will be means of guidance for his erring brother or sister. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: “The worst of things are those that are newly invented; every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance leads in the Fire.” [Ref: Nisa’I, B19, H1579] This misguidance of believing that Muslims are guilty of major Shirk, worshiping idols, graves is an innovation in creed which will land the believers into hellfire. Has a Muslim, I seek for my self the gardens of paradise, I wish for my self, the best in dunya and in aakhira. How could I as a Muslim, not wish for another Muslim what I wish for my self, when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has said: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother" or he said "for his neighbor, what he loves for himself." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H66] And I criticise with intention that Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) guide you as he guided me to correct understanding of the issue which we dispute about. You Will Follow The Ways Of Jews And Christians: You quoted the hadith of; “The Prophet said, "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another. Even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them." The companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) questioned: "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" To which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) replied: "Whom else?" [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H 422] In this hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) interpreted the underlined words: “You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you …” to mean Jews and Christians. Therefore the hadith literally means; you will follow the ways of Jews and Christians. The significance of this is that hadith does not talk about immitating the deeds of past Jews and Christians but the Jews and Christians living in our time. More importantly take note that hadith says we the Muslims will follow the ways of Jews and Christians completely. Now if hadith means that we will immitate the Jews and Christians in religious beliefe then its impossible because Christianity as whole is polytheistic [but does have monotheistic sects] and Judaism as whole is monotheistic [but did have one sect believed in Uzair to be son of God]. Therefore as Muslims we cannot hold fallow the creed of two religions as described in the hadith because they are diametric opposites. The hadith states we will fallow both Jews and Christians extremely, how extremely read the words your self: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another. Even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them." This hadith indicates, complete, absolute, fallowing without questioning, without giving thought to our actions. Question is are we immitating the Jews and Christians as indicated in the hadith in religious beliefe? Shortest answer to this is, no we are not. The polytheistic Jews in past made golden calf and worshipped it. Have we immitated them and fashioned for our self a golden calf and are we worshipping it? Jews in past, believed Uzair was son of God. Do we believe Uzair is son of God? Or do we believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) us son of Allah? Coming to Christians, Christians believe Jesus is son of God and if we were immitating them hand by hand span then should we also not be believing Jesus is son of God or atleast Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is son of God? Christians believe; for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God but not three gods the One God. Do we the Muslims believe in Allah as the Father? Or do we the Muslims believe, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God? Do we the Muslims believe in Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as the God, or Jibraeel (alayhis salam) as the God? If we were to immitate the Jews and Christians in religious belief then my question is; have we fulfilled what the hadith states? Before you answer this question let me remind you once again what the hadith states: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another. Even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them.” This hadith points to total, absolute, unquestioning adherance to the ways of Jews and Christians not some wishy washy adherance to their ways. Even if this hadith is also about creedal immitation then atleast these signs of Muslims adopting Jews, Christian believes have not appeared yet. Presupposing in some loose sense the hadith can mean, Muslim will worship the idols or committ major Shirk like the Jews and Christians. Then this hadith would be, the type of hadith which increases in intensity as times passes. Meaning more and more qualities of Jews, Christians will be immitated until the Muslims begin to adopt Christian, Jewish, doctrines and by doing this they will eventually either become Jews or Christians depending on whose creed they have adopted. Even if the hadith did not intend such extreme immitation then atleast it can be said; the Muslim of past and present era so far have not fallen into major Shirk. Nor are the Muslims worshipping idols of Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Dhi Al Khalasa. Therefore the only likely condidates who can fulfill this aspect of extreme immitation will be the remaining Kafir Arabs who would have survived the blowing of wind. After which no Muslim would have survived and these Arabs would revert to the polytheistic religion of their forefathers and more specificly worship of Al-Lat, Al-Uzza as well as Dhi Al Khalasa. I firmly believe, for good reason, that the hadith of Muslims immitating Jews, Christians in loose sense means; idol worship or major shirk, is too far fetched. Hence anything based on this premise by default is far fetched because the hadith states extreme immitation of Jews, Christians: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another." Returning of Arabs to the polytheistic religion of their forefathers is in no way extreme immitation of Jews or Christians indicated in the hadith. You would have probally noted that I have not specified a group or sect or a region for the hadith but I have kept it in general meaning refering to all Muslims, it was for good reason. Before I go on to explain the hadith, it is fundamentally important that a essential aspect of the hadith is explained without which detractors of Ahle Sunnat may not truly grasp the enormity of their charge. The words of the hadith indicate that this hadith is for all Muslims and not just a particular sect or region. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) stated: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another." This english ‘before you’ and Arabic ‘qablukum’ is inclusive of all Muslims and not restricted to a sect region. In other words when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you ….” it refers to all the Muslims, from the companions to the Muslims of present era. Meaning, all the Muslims will fallow the ways, the sunan, of Jews as well as the Christians, blindly, unquestionably and unabatingly. So Mr Sufi you as well as the Salafi and everyone else, will be emulating the sunan of Jews and Christians according to the hadith. And clearly we the Muslims are not following the religious creed of the Jews and Christians. Therefore I purpose the hadith does not refer to Muslims emulating the religious creed of Jews or Christians. Instead it points to something else and this something else is so clear to see that no sane individual will question it. We the Muslims as whole and gradually it will be the whole Ummah, as the wealth sweeps across the earth. We all will fallow the ways, the collective social, cultural, moral values of the Jews and the Christians in coming era.Signs of which we the Muslims can see in our life time. The traditional dress of Muslims in Muslim countries has been replaced with jeans and shirt. The respected language and standard of education is where the graduate is able to speak English. We eat, sleep, walk, talk, think, aspire, desire, to be everything which the Jews and the Christians are in their social, cultural values. We the Muslims as whole approve and support the implimention of kufr democratic system on our lands but we fear as the Jews, Christians fear the laws of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We the Muslims as whole are willing to fight and die for the right to be ruled for democratic government just as the Jews and Christians are willing to fight for this system but for Islamic law to be implimented upon the land of Muslims we wouldn’t move a finger. Jews as well as the Christians have Beauty Contests and contestants. Wearing skimpiest of dresses parading their bodies as if whore is being auctioned and our sinful Muslim sisters are parading their bodies in these contests without shame. But we haven’t got as far as hosting these whore auctions in our countries, maybe in Arab countries but so far not in Pakistan or atleast I have not heard of such whore auctions. The Jews, the Christians are having Mr Universe contests where steriod filled food consuming machines walk on stage to show of their finely chizzled muscles wearing enough to cover the private parts and the Muslims are not be out done, the Pakistani’s are doing just that. According to my investigation of the matter in dispute and the hadith in question, does not refer to creedal adherance in any sense but it refers to immitating the social, cultural, moral and adopting of Western societal norms and the evidence to establish this hypothesis is something which everyone experiences every day. It requires no great deal of knowledge to truly understand the hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alahi was’sallam). The true meaning of hadith has been explained which I hope you will not contend with and accept the legitimacy of the interpretation. With this being done now I can answer your question; “I ask you a question, didn't Bani israeel do Shirk?” Yes my brother, indeed a party of them did worship the golden calf and a party of them took Uzair as son of God but this does not have any relevance with us because majority of them remained upon Tawheed and are still upon Tawheed. If one side of the coin says worshiping of golden calf as well as taking a creation of God as son of God then the other side of the coin says Tawheed. And if we were to fallow them as stated in the hadith: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another." Then how will you reconcile the logical contradiction which arises from the fact that we the Muslims are suppose to adhering to their teaching in every aspect. Which boils down to being Mushrik and Muwahid at the same time. Now lets suppose a group of the fallowers of Musa (alayhis salam) firmly believed in Tawheed and it is attested in the Quran. I quote you the verse and then couple that verse with the above hadith. Will that be sufficent reason to believe all Muslims will firmly hold to Tawheed and never ever committ Shirk? On other hand there is proof that a faction from the Jews worshipped the calf and took Uzair as son of God. Based on this fact, can we believe all Muslims will worship idols? In this Jewish context it is possible to forward the argument; a faction from the Jews worshiped the golden calf and a faction from the Jews believed Uzair to be son of God therefore it is possible to for factions within Muslims to be idol worshipers. But in the comprehensive context of the hadith, this understanding is not possible because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) stated we the Muslims will follow the ways of Jews and Christians: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you so much that you will resemble each other as an arrow resembles another. Even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?" [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H 422] Yes, your interpretation would be validated if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) only stated Muslims will adhere to the sunan of Jews. It is not the case, even though Jews as whole are Muwahideen and few amongst them committed major Shirk. The Christians as whole are Mushrikeen hence in light of hadith the Muslims would be Mushrikeen as whole including Mr Salafi’s and Wahhabi’s. Mushrikeen Do Believe In Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Wit Shirk: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in the Quran: “And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.”[7] [Ref: 12:106] Those who accuse Muslims of worshiping graves, trees, idols, saints, interpret this verse to mean; and most of them, the Muslims, believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but they also attributes partners to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In order to correctly understan the verse 106, some important eliments from the context have to be pointed out. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “وَمَا أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتَ بِمُؤْمِنِينَ” meaning, “And most of the people as much as you wish, will not believe.” [Ref: 12:103] Out of all the people on earth most would not believe in religion of Islam, even though Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) wishes that they believe and about this majority Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states; “-وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ” meaning; “And most of them believed in Allah but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] In other words the majority, the Mushrikeen, about whom Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) wished that they believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), as the One and the Only God will not believe in Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). They will not believe in Prophethood of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), and they will not believe in the Quran as word from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), because; “… most of them believe in Allah but not without Shirk.” This interpretation of verse of Quran is also attested by another verse of the Quran, which states; "Say: "Travel in the land and see what was the end of those before (you)! Most of them were Mushrikoon." [Ref: 30:42] The deeper interpretation of the verse is that the polytheists will not believe because teaching of Islam goes against their polytheistic beliefe system. The above interpretation is connected with another interpretation which establishes that most of the people of past were Mushrikeen and the majority of mankind will remain Mushrik even though Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) wishes for them to convert to Islam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "Say: "Travel in the land and see what was the end of those before (you)! ..." [Ref: 30:42] Why do we need to see the end of those gone before us: “… most of them believed in Allah but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] For this reason Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "... Most of them were Mushrikoon." [Ref: 30:42] The essential point of these two verses is; most of the people before Islam, most of the people in modern history and most of people in future will be Mushrikeen. As in history the majority of mankind held polytheistic concepts and associated partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In conclusion it can be said, the real objective of these two verses was to inform Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) that even though you wish to convert the entire mankind to Islam, it will not happen. The majority will not believe in Islam because they are Mushrikeen, like the majority in history did not believe due to their major Shirk. Lets look at this verse in discussion from another perspective. Just to recap, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] So do the idol worshipers believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Let’s analyze this verse of the Quran in light of Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrates the believes of the Mushrikeen of Arabian peninsula indicating that they believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, 'Allah'. Say : See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they …" [Ref: 39:38] and another verse states the same: “And if you were to ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they would surely say “Allah!” [Ref: 29:61] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that during traveling on the sea, when the Mushrikeen are harmed they call upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but when they come to saftey of land they abandon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And when harm touches you upon the sea, those that you call upon besides Him are lost from you – except Him (Allah alone). But when He brings you safely to land, you turn away (from Him). And man is ever ungrateful.” [Ref: 17:67] These verses affirm that in nominal sense the Mushrikeen of Arabian peninsula did believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as their God but not without associating idols as Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) god-partners. Also out of all mankind the majority, the Mushrikeen all over the earth, in general, do believe in a single Creator who is in charge of subordinate gods. Therefore this verse is true description of the creed of the majority of human beings, in other words the Mushrikeen. Out of entire mankind the Hindu india, the Budhists, the Christians combined all togather to form a over whelming majority of Mushrikeen. And in such over whelming majority of Mushrikeen the Muslims are a minority and we do not associate partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hence the meaning of the verse of Quran perfectly fits into reality of Mushrik majority: : “And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] This fact has been established with clear proof that this verse refers to the majority of mankind on earth therefore the verse of Quran does not include the Muslims. Quran also explicitly states that Mushrikeen associated partners with Him: “He has created the heavens and the earth with truth. High is He, Exalted above all that they associate as partners with Him.” [Ref: 16:3] Due to Mushrikeen associating partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is instructed to say: “Your Ilah (i.e. god) is One Ilah (i.e. god). But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny [the belief in Unity Of Allah] and they are proud.” [Ref: 16:22] Verses Revealed Regarding Disbelievers Applying Them Upon Believers: In a hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said about the Khawarij: "There will appear in it, some people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out from (leave) Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.' " [Ref: Bukhari, B84, H68] It means the Quran will not reach the heart, the organ of understanding, the organ of guidance will not receive the Quran hence it will remain devoid of noor of Quranic guidance. As a result of lack of noor in the heart the adherant of Khariji apostasy interpreted the verses which were revealed regarding disbelievers in a such a fashion that it described the believers. Imam Bukhari narrates what Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed about Khawarij: “And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers." [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing The Khawari] Just as the Khawarij originally misinterpreted the verses of Quran revealed about the disbelievers to describe the believers. The modern Khawarij, the Wahhabi’s interpret the verses of Quran as well as the hadith which describe the creed of disbelievers in a fashion these sources describe believers. My Wahhabi brother interpreted the verse of Quran which was revealed describing the creed of Mushrikeen to mean; most of Muslims do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without committing [major] Shirk. Yet the reality of this verse is that it means; most of mankind do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without committing [major] Shirk. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] “By Allah! I am not afraid that you associate with Allah (i.e. idol-gods as partners to worship them) after my death, but I am afraid that you will fight with one another for the worldly things." [Ref: Bukhari, B23, H428] - [2] “… and the Last Hour will not come before the tribes of my Ummah attach themselves to the polytheists and tribes of my Ummah worship idols. There will be among my people thirty great liars ..." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B30, H4239] - [3] “Maulvi Ishaq Sahib ko maqool jawab mil jata agar khawaish e haq rakhtay. Doh hadithen joh pereen ummat meh Shirk sabat karnay kay leyeh un kee wazahat hadith say sabat heh kay yeh us waqt kay bad ka waqiat hen jab hawa chalay gee aur musalmanoon kee maut hogi aur joh peechay kom bachay gee Shirk keray gee. Is say Pehlay kay leyeh nahin.” - [4] “Mery aziz aoa, ap ne farmaya in hadeeson mein musalmanon ki maut ke bad ka zkir hai. To mera apse sawal hai jo NABI (ALYSLAM) ne farmaya ke MERI UMMAT shirk kary gi. Is tarha to ap ki daleel baymani ho jati hai kion ke nabi pak sallallahu alayhi was’sallam ne to ummat ke bary me farmya. Ap kya samjhty hein kya wo ummat nahi hongy? Ya hongy? Plz roshni daliye. Ap ke liye video suggest kar raha hun search bar mein ye titile likhen: - DIL Ko Hila Dene Wali HADEESAIN. Allah Tala ap ko izzat ata farmye ameen.” - [5] “Allah kay nabi (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) ka farman heh kay meri ummah buttoon kee pooja keray gee. Us hadith kee wazahat khud RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) nay farmahi, kay meri ummat yehni Arab ummat, al-Lat, al-Uzza aur Dhi al Khalasa kee ibadat keray gee. ummat, ba mana Muslim ummat, nahin balkay ummat ba mana qaum, hadith meh istimal huwa heh. Is hadith meh ummat lughvi mafoom meh istimal huwa heh shar'ree meh nahin. Yehni lafz ummat nation, qaum kay mafoommeh istimal huwa heh Musalman brotherhood kay mafoom meh nahin. Aap shahid sochen, kay agar lughvi mafoom meh istimal huwa aur shar’ri mafoom meh nahin toh farq kia perta heh? Farq yeh parta heh kay jis ummat ka RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) nay farmaya kay woh buttoon kee pooja keray gee us ka musalman hona zeroori nahin balkay Arab kafir ho ker buttoon kee pooja ker sakta heh. Hadith meh aya heh hawa chalay gee joh musalmanoon kee jaan leh leh gee phir logh Alat, Uzzat, Dhi al Khalasa kee ibadat keren gay aur apnay aba o ajdad kay mazhab kee taraf loten gay. Note keren, hawa chalay gee aur sab musalmanoon kee jan leh leh gee, kohi musalman nahin bachay ga, phir us kay baad log buttoon kee pooja keren gay. Aur jin buttoon kee pooja hogi un ka naam be bataya heh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) nay. Is sab say, yeh sabat hota heh kay, Arab secularist kafir ho jahen gay, aur jab musalman mar jahen gay toh Arab Alat Uzzat, Manat, Dhi Al khalasa kee ibadat keren gay. Ek aur hadith meh heh kay logh apnay forefathers kay mazhab per qaim hoon gay. Lamba kissa mukhtasar, hadith meh 'meri ummat' kay ilfaaz say murad 'meri nation' heh aur RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) kee nation Arab heh aur hadith say sabat heh kay Arab buttoon, yehni Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Dhi al Khalasa kee ibadat keren gay aur apnay forefathers kay mazhab kee taraf loten gay. Meh aap ko apnay English articles ka link behijta hoon jin meh tafseel aur dalahil sab mojood hen zeroor peryeh ga. Aur zeroor jawab likhyeh ga.” - [6] Please bare in mind, my brothers message has been edited, spelling mistakes, gramatical mistakes, and general formatting was improved upon for the ease of reading. Gramatical mistakes were crossed and correct with red writing. Quotation marks as well as quote “colour” for ease of finding scriptural evidence and coma’s were inserted for, pause, in the right places. Apart from these change I acknowledge my mistake of inserting indirectly the name of idol-god Manat into the narrative of hadith and which I have crossed out in footnote five. I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from evil wispers of Iblees, ameen. - [7] This verse of Quran was revealed in Makkah thus making it one of the earliers Surahs revealed before the Hijrah. It is undeniable fact that Islam began to dominate and rapidly spread the Arabian peninsula after the Hijrah. Especially when the companions returned to Makkah with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) with ten thousand armed Muslims. This information is important because prior to this time the Mushrikeen of Arabian peninsula were in majority therefore the verse accurately described them as polytheistic majority. On general level the verse of the Quran retained is definitive meaning; out of all the mankind Mushrikeen being the majority and muwahideen being a minority even after the conquests of Islam.

@Syed Muhammed Ali Mushrikeen Do Believe In Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) With Shirk: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in the Quran: “And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.”[7] [Ref: 12:106] Those who accuse Muslims of worshiping graves, trees, idols, saints, interpret this verse to mean; and most of them, the Muslims, believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but they also attributes partners to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In order to correctly understan the verse 106, some important eliments from the context have to be pointed out. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “وَمَا أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتَ بِمُؤْمِنِينَ” meaning, “And most of the people as much as you wish, will not believe.” [Ref: 12:103] Out of all the people on earth most would not believe in religion of Islam, even though Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) wishes that they believe and about this majority Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states; “-وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ” meaning; “And most of them believed in Allah but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] In other words the majority, the Mushrikeen, about whom Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) wished that they believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), as the One and the Only God will not believe in Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). They will not believe in Prophethood of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), and they will not believe in the Quran as word from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), because; “… most of them believe in Allah but not without Shirk.” This interpretation of verse of Quran is also attested by another verse of the Quran, which states; "Say: "Travel in the land and see what was the end of those before (you)! Most of them were Mushrikoon." [Ref: 30:42] The deeper interpretation of the verse is that the polytheists will not believe because teaching of Islam goes against their polytheistic beliefe system. The above interpretation is connected with another interpretation which establishes that most of the people of past were Mushrikeen and the majority of mankind will remain Mushrik even though Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) wishes for them to convert to Islam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "Say: "Travel in the land and see what was the end of those before (you)! ..." [Ref: 30:42] Why do we need to see the end of those gone before us: “… most of them believed in Allah but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] For this reason Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "... Most of them were Mushrikoon." [Ref: 30:42] The essential point of these two verses is; most of the people before Islam, most of the people in modern history and most of people in future will be Mushrikeen. As in history the majority of mankind held polytheistic concepts and associated partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In conclusion it can be said, the real objective of these two verses was to inform Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) that even though you wish to convert the entire mankind to Islam, it will not happen. The majority will not believe in Islam because they are Mushrikeen, like the majority in history did not believe due to their major Shirk. Lets look at this verse in discussion from another perspective. Just to recap, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] So do the idol worshipers believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Let’s analyze this verse of the Quran in light of Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrates the believes of the Mushrikeen of Arabian peninsula indicating that they believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, 'Allah'. Say : See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they …" [Ref: 39:38] and another verse states the same: “And if you were to ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they would surely say “Allah!” [Ref: 29:61] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that during traveling on the sea, when the Mushrikeen are harmed they call upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but when they come to saftey of land they abandon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And when harm touches you upon the sea, those that you call upon besides Him are lost from you – except Him (Allah alone). But when He brings you safely to land, you turn away (from Him). And man is ever ungrateful.” [Ref: 17:67] These verses affirm that in nominal sense the Mushrikeen of Arabian peninsula did believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as their God but not without associating idols as Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) god-partners. Also out of all mankind the majority, the Mushrikeen all over the earth, in general, do believe in a single Creator who is in charge of subordinate gods. Therefore this verse is true description of the creed of the majority of human beings, in other words the Mushrikeen. Out of entire mankind the Hindu india, the Budhists, the Christians combined all togather to form a over whelming majority of Mushrikeen. And in such over whelming majority of Mushrikeen the Muslims are a minority and we do not associate partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hence the meaning of the verse of Quran perfectly fits into reality of Mushrik majority: : “And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] This fact has been established with clear proof that this verse refers to the majority of mankind on earth therefore the verse of Quran does not include the Muslims. Quran also explicitly states that Mushrikeen associated partners with Him: “He has created the heavens and the earth with truth. High is He, Exalted above all that they associate as partners with Him.” [Ref: 16:3] Due to Mushrikeen associating partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is instructed to say: “Your Ilah (i.e. god) is One Ilah (i.e. god). But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny [the belief in Unity Of Allah] and they are proud.” [Ref: 16:22] Footnote: - [7] This verse of Quran was revealed in Makkah thus making it one of the earliers Surahs revealed before the Hijrah. It is undeniable fact that Islam began to dominate and rapidly spread the Arabian peninsula after the Hijrah. Especially when the companions returned to Makkah with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) with ten thousand armed Muslims. This information is important because prior to this time the Mushrikeen of Arabian peninsula were in majority therefore the verse accurately described them as polytheistic majority. On general level the verse of the Quran retained is definitive meaning; out of all the mankind Mushrikeen being the majority and muwahideen being a minority even after the conquests of Islam.

Qazi Ayaaz rahimullah Sunni aalim hen, ibarat meh likha heh kay RasoolAllah ka zahir bashr heh aur batin farishtoon wala yehni noori.

Salam alayqum wr wb, Tahir Jhangvi kay khilaf ulama joh mowaqif ikthiyar ker chukay hen aur likh chukay hen woh kafi heh. Wesay bila waja mazeed hawa denay kee zeroorat nahin heh. Jitna ziyada is malhoon kee tanqeed hogi utna hee ziyada us kay hawari ghali hoon gay. Is leyeh behtr heh kay us ko nazr andaaz keeya jahay aur constructive andaaz meh joh us kay khilaf nazriat hen awaam taq punchaya jahay baghair is ka naam leeyeh. Aaj kay dawr meh nazriat aur dalahil ka wazan nahin dekha jata balkay kin kin PEEROON AUR TV CHANNELS PER ANA AUR SECULARIST KO KUSH KERNAY KAY LEYEH ISLAM KO MODER KERNAY WALA kamyab hota heh. Zakir Naik jesa jahil aur chawal banda aaj kay dawr meh logoon kay leyeh khuda aur rasool ka darja rakhta heh, joh woh kahay darust heh chahay Quran hadith kay khilaf kahay. Is'see tera Tahir Qadri kay fallowers ka be yahi haal heh. Is leyeh intelligent tareeqay say apnay mukhalifeeen ko qail keren. Wahhabi Deobandi keun hamaray khilaf kamyab hen unoon nay waar kernay kay andaz ko badla heh aur ham purani; OYEE WAHHABIYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, you are disgusting and filthy, i hate you, u people are gustakh ... yeh keh ker ham apnay dil kee aag tthandi ker letay hen magar Wahhabi baray tareekay saleekay say sunniyoon ko apnay mazhab kay aqahid ko samjatay hen aur qail ker letay hen. Khuda ka wasta meray bahiyo apnay aap ko badlo mera andaaz be esa thah kohi forum essa nahin jahan say ban nah huwa hoon, is IslamiMehfil say meh taqriban teen dafa ban ho chuka hoon. Ilm thah, ata bot kuch thah, magar josh aur gussay nay mat mar deeh thee. Khadam badla sirf is waja say kay Maulana Ilyas Qadri say kissi banday nay dari kay mutalaq kaha, meh office meh pent suite penta hoon, dari shareef suite nahin kerti pent suite kay saath toh kia rakhna zeroori heh meray leyeh. Maulana Ilyas Qadri sahib nay farmaya kay kay apnay zehn meh RasooAllah sallalahu alayhi was'sallam ka chehra mubarak lahen, aur dari ko be zenh meh lahen, banda esa kerta heh, phir pochtay hen kia RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'sallam ko dari shareef khoobsoorat nahin lagti, bola lagti heh, farmaya tummeh keun nahin lagay gee phir? Banday nay dor ker mazrat kee aur hath chooma aur wada keeya kay zeroor dari rakhoon ga. Abh meray jesa banda hota toh pehlay toh us ko gusssay meh khoob jumlay kasta, tooh yahoodi agent heh, pent suite kee tummeh fikr heh tooh musalmanoon meh kam aur western ziayada heh, phir us ko hadisen, hadisen suna suna suna ker us ko itna ajiz ker deta kay woh dua kerta ya Allah ek dafa gar zinda paunch jahoon ainda deen sekhnay kee taraf nahin janay wala. Is ka bot asr huwa muj per phir alhamdu lillah sab chor deeya. jazbat ko qabooh kernay kee koshish kee aur dil meh narmi kee duahen keen, kay ya Allah is murda dil ko zinda ker deh, is qalay dil ko noor say bar deh aur tareeka aur tableegh e deen ka saleeka sikha deh, phir Allah kay karam say aista aista be fizool maghz mari joh deobandiyoon aur Wahhabiyoon say hoti thee us say door ho gaya, aur Allah ta'ala nay is deen kee khidmat ka moqa deeya. Yeh sab meri duaoon per qaram huwa warna meray jesa third class banda is qabil hargiz nahin thah aur nah heh. Meray bahiyo please constructive tareeqay say deen kee khidmat kren aur sab say pehlay aap ko esa kernay kay leyeh aap ko constructive ilm chahyeh, destructive ilm nahin. Yehni bunyadi ilm, Tawheed, Shirk, biddat, is dawr kay ikhtilafi masail per ilm hasil keren ilm e ghayb, maqam e shahid (hadhir nadhir), noori bashr, ... waghera. Aur phir tareekay aur piyar aur muhabbat say Wahhabiyoon Deobandiyoon ko Tawheed, Shirk, biddat, namaz kay fazail, waghera ... aur hasb e zeroorat gustakhiyoon wala ilm hasal keren aur tareekay aur saleekay say apnay mowaqif ko pesh keren.

masha'allah my brother, excellent. Keep up the good work. It was a excellent read.

Khadam nay apnay biddat kay mozoo per chand articles meh yeh tarjumah istimal keeya heh: Allah's Messenger () said, "If somebody innovates something which is not in [harmony with the principles of] our religion, that thing is rejected. jis ka tarjuma heh: agar kissi nay kohi essi ijaad kee joh hamaray deen kay asooloon kay mawaqif nahin woh mardood heh. Arabi aur Urdu matan pera toh maloom huwa kay yeh upper wala lafzi tarjuma nahin balkay ilfaaz: harmony with the principles of hadith meh nahin balkay yeh mutarjim kay apnay ilfaaz hen yehni us nay tafseeli tarjuma keeya heh. Is hadith ka Arabi matan: حدثنا يعقوب حدثنا إبراهيم بن سعد عن أبيه عن القاسم بن محمد عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس فيه فهو رد رواه عبد الله بن جعفر المخرمي وعبد الواحد بن أبي عون عن سعد بن إبراهيم http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=52&ID=1706&idfrom=4905&idto=4908&bookid=52&startno=1 Agar kissi kay pass kohi mawad ho joh upper walay English Urdu tarjumeh kee taeed meh ho toh please help keren. Khadam kay feham kay mutabiq tafseeli tarjuma darust heh magar tafseel kee daleel darkar heh. Agar taeed meh saboot nah mil sakka toh phir mujjay biddat kay mozoo per taqriban 10 articles ko re-adjust kerna peray ga.

Salam alaqyum wr wb Deen seekhnay meh time sirf keren in batoon per nahin. Kohi be bashahoor insaan ghair mulki waqiat per kohi tassur nahin pesh ker sakta jab taq us ko waqiat ka ilm nah ho. In mumalik meh khana jangi say joh log faida uthahen gay woh Wahhabi hen. Larahi kay aakhir meh wohi kuch hoga joh hota aya heh aur hota rahay ga. Yehni mazaraat e Awliyah, aur qaboor e momineen ko rocketoon, buldozeroon, say mandam keeya jahay ga aur Sunni ulamah ka qatal aam keeya jahay ga aur phir resistance ko khatam kernay kay baad Saudi Arab kay dollars say Wahhabiat kee tableegh ko firogh deeya jahay ga aur nateeja wohi hoga joh Saudi Arab meh aap dekh rahay hen. Yehni Sunni bachen gay toh sirf chup chup ker Sunni rahen gay. Ahle Sunnat kay madaris o bilqul khatam keeya jahay ga state level per Wahhabi hakumat hogi joh Wahhabiat ko farogh deh gee. Aur is kee waja sirf ek hee heh ham Sunniyoon nay Jihad ko tarq ker deeya heh. Aur Deobandiyoon aur Wahhabiyoon nay qatal e aam ko apnay mazhab kay tahaffuz aur pehlanay ka tareeka bana leeya heh. Agar aap in haqaiq ko mad e nazr rakh ker sochen toh khud samaj jahen gay kay kohi be Sunni Aalim Syria aur Egypt kay baghiyoon kay baray meh kuch acha nahin keh sakta keun kay in baghiyoon kee bunyad Wahhabiat aur woh Wahhabiat ko pehlanay kee khatar jang ker rahay hen.

Background: I went to my local shop to purchase a can of Redbull. While I was paying for the drink a friend of mine whom I had very good frienship in college days entered the shop with his young daughter and son. After customary greetings we stood outside the shop to catch-up with lattest news of each others life. He noticing my beard enquired if I have continued my studies of comparative religion. Told him that I had given up on it very long time ago due to uncertaintities of my own aqeedah and due to it I wanted to devote more time to learning of aqeedah. During discussing about Hadhrat Ali’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) dispute with Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) I used the word Mawla (Master, Supporter, Protector) with Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). He seemed to be surprised that I used this word for him and indirectly hinted that the word I used is Shirk by saying; brother Ali we must not use all the words we hear cause some words if used even unitentionally can make a believer guilty of Shirk. At that moment I could not make connection between the word I used and his comment. So I assumed its one random comment which doesn’t have anything to with what I have said and I aknowledged that the we should use words which may make a Muslim polytheist. At that moment he began to fill me up with his brand of Wahhabism. Round One – Advantage To Wahhabi: Wahhabi Said: The word Mawla is unique title of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and you have granted a exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to a creation. No where the word Mawla has been used for a creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) in Quran or Hadith. The Arabs of Jahiliyyah also attributed to their idol gods exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) like you attributed the exclusive attribute of Mawla to Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). [Then really symphathetically and sincerely said] Brother this is Shirk and be aware of commiting such Shirk because this is the only sin which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not forgive. You should repent my brother othewise you will be with the Mushrikeen on day of judgement and those whom you associate with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not be able to help you in anyway.[1] I Said: According to you, use of title Mawla for a Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is Shirk because you believe it is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). There are many narrations which quote the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) which he used for Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “Whoever I am a Mawla (i.e. master, supporter) for, then Ali is his Mawla.”[2] Wahhabi said: Brother this hadith is extremely weak so it cannot be used as evidence.[3] I Said: Okay, if the hadith is weak then certainly it cannot be used as evidence and I have nothing to contest in this regard but I do have number of questions. Is Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) a momin? What proof do you have that Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?[4] Wahhabi Said: Yes, ofcourse he is a Momin. We Salafi’s believe that he was fourth rightly guided Caliph of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Anyone who has a even a seed worth of hate for him such a person is a munafiq. [On and on …][5] Round Two – Wahhabi Dazed & Stumbling: [Note: In the evening as expected my Wahhabi friend called after Isha and wished to bring his friends with him. Which was polite of him but I had to refuse his request to bring all his friends along. Reason I explained to him that house I live in was council built property hence there are no solid walls and these card board type walls carry sound uninterrupted to the entire house. Thus having too many people will result in typical shouting which is inherent part of such discussions and it will disturb my uncle and aunty who are quite old. Which he was gentleman about and agreed to come with one of his friends who was driver. When he reached outside my house he called, I greeted, seated him and his friend in the guest room. Skip …] I Said: What is the proof that Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?[6] Wahhabi Said: The following verses of Quran prove Mawla is unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “… our Lord! Put not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Pardon us and grant us Forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are Mawlana( our Mawla) and give us victory over the disbelieving people.” [Ref: 2:284] “Say: "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our Mawla and on Allah let the Believers put their trust.” [Ref: 9:51] Both of these verses clearly prove that Mawla is attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you know that if a attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is given to a creation then its Shirk. I Said: You do know that the Mawlana is used as a title in subcontinent for the scholars by Deobandi’s, Wahhabi’s and even by Sunni’s.Yet no one from amongst them has issued fatwa of Shirk. Accepting that you question the aqeedah of Tawheed of Sunni’s and Shia’s but even the Pakistani Wahhabi’s have not issued edict of Shirk on its use.I cannot vouch for any other faction but as far as I know the scholars of Ahle Sunnat. They are very principled and would not practice favourtism on such serious issue of Shirk instead they would level the charge of Shirk if it was so.[7] Wahhabi Said: People do not associate the word Mawla with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) because its use has been associated with scholars of deen from past generations therefore its use poses no danger to one's aqeedah of Tawheed. When the word Mawlana is popularly associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in subcontinent then its use for any creation would be Shirk.[8] I Said: The principle used by you to determine Shirk is; any attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) affirmed creation is Shirk. Based on this principle, the excuse for not making takfir of all parties is invalid because according to your principles of determining exclusivity. You believe the word Mawla is uniquely, exclusively, used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in the Quran and the word Mawla has been associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in Quran by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) Himself. You criteria to judge Shirk is based on exclusivity lafzi on evidence of Quran, Hadith, not if creation of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has associated a word with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) or not. It is established unquestionably that in the Quran word Mawla has been used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hence in your methodology there is no valid reason to not to consider use of Mawla for creation to be major Shirk. This establishes that in your methodology of determining Shirk, exclusivity itself is not enough to judge major Shirk but other factors may alter the verdict. On the basis of your statement; when a attribute is commonly used for creation and is not associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) it is not Shirk. Can we infere the fallowing principle; when a title is commonly used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and not associated with creation then if it is used for a creation, it is Shirk? Can you answer this question now, please so I can continue. Wahhabi Said: Well, brother if there is evidence for it then it cannot be Shirk even if it was commonly associated with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[9] I Said: This leads to problematic aspect of application of reverse infered principle; even though Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is Rauf, Raheem but because commonly Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is stated to be Rauf, Raheem and the words are asscicated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hence to believe Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is Rauf, Raheem is Shirk. If your principle; when a attribute is commonly used for creation and is not associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) it is not Shirk.’ is correct then my reverse inferred principle is also correct.[10] Wahhabi-2 Said: You have commited kufr by saying; anyone who believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Rauf, Raheem is committing Shirk, because we believe that any attribute which is proven for a creation cannot be Shirk if a creation is equated with this attribute. He went on to say; in Saudi Arabia the Islamic court would have judged my statement to be kufr which would have earned you death sentence due to kufr being apostacy. I Said: Your principle of determining Shirk states; any attribute of Allah affirmed for creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or Hadith. So you are upset that I did not employ; except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or hadith, in giving your Wahhabi verdict. Employing it would mean that since the attributes of Rauf, Raheem are affirmed for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) they are not Shirk in Wahhabism. In reality your brother ignored the first part of the principle; exclusive (i.e. Mawla) attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk, to exonerate a bunch of people from Shirk. Then your brother here went on to present his case; word Mawla is used for creation but its not associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hence its not Shirk to adress creation of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). So if anyone committed kufr according to your own system is your friend here and if anyone deserves death sentence for legalizing major Shirk its your friend here not me. I merely went to the opposite extreme to demonstrate the error of my friends principle. Based on his princple I reverse inferred the following position; when a attribute is popularly used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and not associated with creation then if it is used for a creation, then it will warrant Shirk.To establish a fault in such concocted principles I argued that popularly the words Rauf, Raheem are used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and are not associated with Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) hence it is Shirk to use them for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam).Your friend ignored this part of the principle; exclusive (i.e. Mawla) attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk, to lift the sword of takfir from the necks of Ahle Hadith of subcontinent. I on other hand ignored the second part of your own principle; except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or hadith in order to justify takfir of those who do use Rauf, Raheem as titles of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). You was selectivly applying your principle of Shirk but when I bent your rules you was unhappy about it. This relaxing of rules of determining Shirk by you and me is without set guidelines. So anyone can relax any part of the principle or mint a new rule to justify a position. The danger of your methodology of determining Shirk is that it can be used to legalise what in your understanding should be major Shirk, like it has happened in this case. It also can be altered at will and utilised to demonise and hereticate the established believes of Quran. You are a slightly sober Wahhabi who understands the enormity of firing takfir nuclear bomb and you comprimised the principle to allow some bad Wahhabi apples to be with the good apples. You didn’t go as far as declaring these apples are no longer apples but they are vegetables. This rare show of tolerance only has surfaced because you are aware that your own Wahhabi brethren would become vegetables with your edict of takfir and not for love of truth or fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).[11] [Note: After repeating bits and pieaces of above few times the penny dropped with them that they have made a mistake by comprimising their principle of Shirk; any attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) affirmed for creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or Hadith and then decided to hold to it in whole. I then went to get some refreshments for them and well deserved cup of tea for my self. I had very bad head ache after banging my head against two walls of stupidity for an hour and fifteen minutes.] Round Three – Wahhabi Down & Out: I Said: I demanded proof which proves that Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not Mawla being attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I agree with you that Mawla is attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but I disagree that Mawla is exclusive and unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore furnish me with evidence which proves Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Wahhabi Said: Let me quote yo verses of Quran:“Nay, Allah is your Mawla and He is the Best of helpers.” [Ref: 3:150] “And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Mawla (what) an Excellent Mawla, and (what) an Excellent Helper!” [Ref: 8:40] “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Mawla and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.” [Ref: 62:2] There are many verses of Quran which prove that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), our Lord, our Creator is Mawla yet there is not a single verse of Quran or authentic hadith which proves a creation is Mawla. Now brother tell me if Mawla is exclusive attribute or not in light of these facts. I Said: You are correct to state that attribute of Mawla is unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) …[12] Wahhabi Said: Well this proves our point. You just have demolished your own position and validated our argument.[13] I Said: Yes you are right that Mawla is a unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but not in the meaning which you believe it to be unique attribute. You believe that Mawla hasn’t been used for a creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran or Hadith therefore it is unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This belief is heretical because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Mawla of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as Saleh Momineen, and angles: “If you two turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined but if you help one another against him, then verily, Allah is his Mawla, and Jibrael, and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.” [Ref: 66:4] Therefore in your methodology Mawla cannot be unique, exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). On the basis of this fault you have accused me of committing major Shirk as well as in principle agreed to make takfir of those who use word Mawla for creation. Now coming to how I believe Mawla is unique, exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I believe these attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are unique, exclusive in meaning of; zaati (i.e. personnel), qadeemi (i.e. eternal), ghair izni (i.e. requiring no permission), qulli (i.e. absolute), la mahdood (i.e. unlimited), ghair-makhlooq (i.e. uncreated), and haqiqi (i.e. intrinsic). If one does not believe attributes which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) shared with creation to be unique, exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then the person has committed major Shirk. Therefore it is essential to believe all attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are unique and exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Any principle which produces result contrary to this infact has legalised major Shirk. Your principle teaches; only those attributes which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not share with his creation are unique, exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore the principle which legalises major Shirk cannot be valid but its heretical and I dare to say kufr. Coming to Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being Mawla. If you remember earlier today you conceded that Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is Momin and the verse of Quran says: “... Allah is his Mawla, and Jibrael, and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.” Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is amongst the Saleh ul Momineen (i.e. pious believers) therefore your denial of his being Mawla is atleast at present heretical if not kufr. Also the charge of Shirk which you levelled against me returns to you and its essential that you re-affirm you faith in Islam with Shahadah. [Note: My this response changed the battlefield completely. Now instead of debating with me they were more concerned about how to make a honorable retreat and recover some lost ground. After few half hearted attempts both of them came to realize there is no point in debating further; the mud will only dry in the heat and their chance of getting out safely would increasingly be slimmer. So they resorted to apeasement and promised that they will return to learn more about the aqeedah of Tawheed as well as Shirk. Between the discussion and writing of this note it’s been about three and half years. I am still waiting for the day they visit me again for some ear bashing.] Conclusion: We realise the three important aspects of Wahhabi methodology of determining Shirk; one, the Wahhabi principles of Shirk are incomplete even in their invalid state. Two; the justification for abstaining from Takfir is batil because exclusivity in their methodology is determined exclusively on textual proofs and not on usage of words by creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) for another creation. Finally three; Wahhabi'ism is belief system equale to; pay as you go, eat as you go, and now make wahhabi'ism as you go. Had his methodology, understanding and application of principles of Shirk been correct they would not have had to ignore any part of their principles nor reverse inference would have contradicted anything of their belief. Muhammed Ali Razavi Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen Footnotes: - [1] With his unflinching, uncomprimising and take no prisoner attitude I was taken aback. Being unsure how to respond to him. The choices were two; be my rude, agressive self or for the guidance maintain respectful, tolerant as well as professional decorum. Sense prevailed, I decided to bottle in the rage which all Pakistani’s feel discussing religious issues with someone who disagrees with them and resort to shouting, screaming to get their point across. - [2] Before I could actually fully explain my point view comprehensively his quarter pint paitence glass was full and he interjected with his two shillings worth of knowledge. Which made my blood boil and I was inches away from blasting him with verbal Tiger Fist but self reminder; Ali breath-in and ignore. - [3] I usually take word of people when they term a hadith weak or forged because no Muslim in sane mind would deliberately term a actual Sahih hadith; a statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as weak or fabricated. Upon hearing his insolent interjection I decided not to press on with the authenticity of the hadith but decided to drop the issue. Continuing it would not have produced any result because situation would have been; my words against his, my source scholars against his source scholars. I wasn’t entirely sure about the hadith being weak but the thought; he may possibly quote traditional scholarship in defence of his position, was enough to deter me from getting involved into un-ending debate about authenticity of a hadith. I later investigated the subject from Sunni, Wahhabi, Deobandi, and even Shia sources and found that there are some narrations which have defects in them but some have reached level of Hassan as well as Sahih. - [4] He seemed to be surprised that I asked him Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being Momin. I think he assumed; I [Muhammed Ali Razavi] have concluded he is a Khariji and based on his this assumption he answered my first question. - [5] He went on praising Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu), highlighting his qualities for quite bit of time. It was the first time while mentioning Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he used honourable (i.e. Hazrat) has a prefix to name of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and used customary dua; Allah be pleased with him. I couldn’t hold my peace for much longer and to rest is guilty concious I had to tell him that I do not believe he is a Khariji just because he declared a hadith as daeef. By the time I managed to rest his guilty concious quite bit of time had passed so I asked him if he would like to visit me and we then will continue from where we left off. To which he agreed, we exchanged phone numbers and he promised he will call before he visits. But before he left I repeated my second question and asked him if he could bring sources for his position, he replied he would. - [6] Hearing this question he began to sift through the printed papers which he had brought along with him and then adressed me; If you like to varify any verse I quote you can use the translation of the Quran. I just acknowledged that if need arised I would and told him to present his evidence. Note he would quote the Arabic verse then quoted the and he quoted full verses. - [7] I was of opinion that if I hit him with common sense right between his eyes and above the nose he will concede that he has made a mistake. I was hoping that he will realize that Ahle Hadith who hold to same concept of Tawheed in subcontinent as he does in England. Would have denounced the use of Mawlana as Shirk if it violated anything in Tawheed but he was not willing to accept anything less then him being right and Ahle Hadith being wrong. When I pressed him to issue edict of Shirk upon the Ahle Hadith of subcontinent he made excuse for them. - [8] With this huge brush he tried to sweep the issue of takfir of Ahle Hadith under the carpet and under the floor boards. I could have easily responded with and end the discussion; well, I do not associate the word Mawla or Mawlana with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), but I decided why do it the easy way when I can do it the hard way. - [9] Quoted him the evidence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being rauf ur raheem from Quran: “Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He is anxious over you for the believers he is rauf ur raheem ( kind and mercifu).” [Ref: 9:128] and asked him if use of Rauf and Raheem for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) be Shirk? To which he replied in negative. - [10] At this stage my friend’s colleuge could not tolerate my innovation and he was visibly angry. - [11] After repeating bits and pieaces of above few times the penny dropped with them that they have made a mistake by comprimising their principle of Shirk; any attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) affirmed for creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or Hadith and then decided to hold to it in whole. - [12] Once again my friend could not keep his peace and didn’t let me complete my sentence and interjected. With a bright smile on the face, as if he has conquered mount Everest. - [13] I had to plead both of them to be quite so I can complete my statement and present my evidence to refute their none sense. And after having to listen to some stinging rebukes i.e. only stupid person would continue to argue against our position. When they both finally agreed to listen to me I proceeded.

Can you make bit of effort to format what you write or copy paste. I hate seeing one or two word lines. Its a sign that person doesnt want to invest time but wants to reap rewards. The least you can do after copy pasting is format in a way that lines are complete. Thats all I ask nothing else, just a bit of effort which shows you care about others and the pain they will go through reading this.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubee. Muhammed Ali Razavi

As salamu alaqyum wr wb Ya aap samajnay say qasir hen ya samajna chahtay nahin hen. Wazahat bari simple aur straight forward heh agar banda sirf qiyaas say andaza laga sakta heh kay joh meh nay likha heh jaiz aur darust heh. Tareekh ka ilm hona zeroori nahin. Baqi joh meh likha heh woh kafi heh. Jis kay leyeh Allah kee taraf say hidayat hoti heh woh ek do linoon say haq ka rasta talash ker leta heh, aur jin ka muqaddar gumrahi heh un kay leyeh char lenoon walay motorways be kafi nahin hen.Meray baee jahan taq meri aqal paunchi aur jahan taq mujjay ilm heh meh nay likh deeya agar aap motmin nahin toh samaj lenh kay is maslay kaymutaliq khadam nay apna sara ilm aur feham sirf ker deeya heh aur meh apni qaballiyat say ziyada kuch nahin ker sakta.

mahsa'allah, point made in way.

Al Muhannad say ek firqa sabat nahin hota balkay Deobandi firqa kay andar aur firqeh peda huway sabat hota heh. Joh aqaid al muhannad meh hen kia woh sab aqahid saray Deobandiyoon kay thay? Al Muhannad meh Qasim Nanotavi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Khalil Ambethvi, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Ismail Dehalvi kay aqahid ko nahin likha gaya balkay joh in kay khilaf thah likha gaya. Al Muhannad meh Qasim Nanotavi ka aqeedah kay khatam ba mana itsaaf zaati ba wasft e nabuwat nahin likha gaya. Yeh aqeedah be nahin likha gaya; Khatamiat e Muhammadi kay baad nabi peda ho jahay toh phir bi khatamiat e muhammadi meh farq nahin peray ga [keun kay (baqaul Qasim nanotavi ki philosophy) Hazoor Khatam ba mana Zaati Nabuwat aur Zaati Nabi hen joh auroon kee Nabuwat jari kerta heh aur us kee nubawat kissi aur makhlooq nay jari nahin kee.][1] Baz ilm e ghayb jannay meh pagaloon, bachoon, janwaroon, keeray makoroon,per RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) ko kohi takhsees nahin, yeh Ashraf Ali Thanvi ka aqeedah nahin likha gaya. Ismail Dehalvi ka aqeedah kay Hazoor mar ker matti meh mil gahay yeh aqeedah nahin likha gaya, waghera ... wagehera... Meri post per ghor o fikr keren joh meh nay pehlay likhi heh. Us ka alhasal yeh thah; Ala Hazrat kay zamanay meh Deobandi mainstream kay aqahid aur nazriat aur thay. Thanvi, Dehalvi, Nanotavi, Ambethvi, Gangohi, panchoon hazrat kay nazriyat Deobandi mainstream kay aqahid nahin thay balkay us waqt yeh new concepts thay jin ko aam Deobandi aur majority of Deobandi firqa kay maulvi be nahin mantay thay. In panchoon kay aqahid o nazriat baad meh modern Deobandi firqa kay nazriat banay aur is meh Al Muhannad ka khasa kirdar heh. Keun kay pehaly wala firqa aur thah aur yeh panchoon offshoot thay mainstream Deobandi firqay kee is leyeh Sayyidi Ala Hazrat nay in kay nazriyat ko ilada firkoon kay nazriat likha. Jistera aaj kay mojooda dawr meh Mamati firqa Deobandi mainstream say sirf ginti kay do masail per ikhtilaaf kerta heh magar us ko firqa Mamatiyyah ka title deeya gaya heh. Is'see tera in panchoon kay nazriyat us zamanay kay Deobandiyoon say mukhtalaf thay aur is ka saboot Al muhannad meh hee aap ko milay ga kay asal meh Deobandiyoon kay aqahid kia hen aur in panchoon nay joh likhay woh us kay khilaf hen. Is waja say Sayyidi Ala Hazrat nay in panchoon kay nazriyat ko ilada ilada firqa likha. Magar is ka matlab yeh nahin kay woh main branch say ilada huway. Meh aap ko ek asaan misaal deh ker samjata hoon. Khawarij is main sect and its branches magar us kay subsects: 1- Al muhakkimah 2- Al Azariqa 3- al najadat 4- al bayhassiya 5-al thalibah 6-al sufriyyah hen. Yeh ilada firqay be ginnay jatay hen aur Khawarij kay subsects be ginnay jatay hen. Ala Hazrat nay is'see tera in panchoon kay nazriat ko ilada firqa ginna keun kay in kay nazriat Deobandi mainstream say different thay magar baad meh in panchoon kay nazriat mainstream Deobandi firqa kay aqahid banay jissay ham aaj Deobandiat kehtay hen. Keun kay zamanay kay mutabiq aqahid o nazriat badlay is leyeh ham aaj apnay zamanay kay lehaz say in panchoon kay aqahid o nazriat ko Deobandiat kay naam say pehchantay hen aur us zamanay meh keun kay in logoon kay nazriat mainstream Deobandi aqeeda nahin thay is leyeh ki kay aqahid ko subsect kay tor per firqa likha. Is say ziyada wazahat kee tawaqoh nah rakhyeh ga. Footnotes: [1] Is ka matlab yeh huwa kay Khatamiat meh farq pernay kay leyeh jab taq kohi nabi itsaaf zaati ba wasf e nabuwat nah peda ho khatamiat meh farq nahin per sakta joh kay kufr sarri heh.

Meh Wahhabi'at kee wazahat kerta hoon: - Wahhabi Muqallid: Saudi Hanbali Wahhabi's and Wahhabi Deobandi's - Wahhabi Ghair muqallid: Ahle Hadith. Aur Wahhabi Deobandiyyah kee shakhen: - Deobandi ismailiyyah - woh logh joh Ismaeel Dehalvi aur us kee kitab; taqwiyatul emaan per imaan lahay. - Deobandi Qasimiyyah (Khatamiyyah) - woh firqa jinoon nay Qasim Nanotavi ko mana aur Tadhir Un Naas per imaan lahay. - Deobandi Kazzabiyyah - Those who believed it is possible for Allah to lie and Allah has lied. Allah can do all the evil which creation can do. - Deobandi Shaytaniyyah - Those who attributed knowledge of ghayb to shaytaan but refused to beleive in ilm ghayb of Prophet sallalahu alayhi was'sallam. Sayyidi Ala Hazrat nay yeh naam is leyeh istimal keeyeh keun kay jis zamanay meh Ala Hazrat nay kitab hassam ul haramain likhi us waqt ek mutfiqqa Deobandi firqa mojood nahin thah. Balkay Deobandi firqa majomoi tor per baad meh namudar huwa. Misaal kay tor per Qasim Nanotavi kee Tadhir un Naas ka kissi nay be saath nah deeya, balkay Thanvi, Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi waghera nay be kuch saath nah deeya. Us zamanay meh Qasim Nanotavi akela apnay mureedoon kay saath chupta phirta thah aur jistera aaj kay dowr meh har deobandi Qasim Nanotavi ko apna peshwa aur muqtada aur bani manta heh us dawr meh esa nahin thah. Balkay joh us dawr meh madrassa Deoband say mansoob thay woh unoon nay bee Qasim Nanotavi ka kohi saath nah deeya. Magar baad meh Qasim Nanotavi kee takfir ka masla barta raha aur 1930's meh Tadhir Un Naas aur Qasim Nanotavi kay kuffr ka difa kerna aam huwa. Yeh jitnay bee logh thay ek uniform FIRQAY kay saath mashoor nahin thay balkay individuals thay. Yeh 1950s SAY LEH ker 1980'S KAY munazra dawr meh yeh panch banday Deobandiyoon kee jammat kee nishani banay aur issee dawr meh in logoon kay aqahid ko aam keeya gaya aur har deobandi bacha bacha in kay nazriyat say waqif huwa aur is waja say firqa Deobandiat ki bunyaad bani. Is say pehlay sirf Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat ka ek firqa thah. Aur haqiqat yeh heh kay yeh logh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab kee talimat say mutasir huway aur Ahle Sunnat kay aqahid o nazriyat say door huway. Wahhabiyat say mutasir honay kay baad Deobandi uqabireen nay apni new aqahid banahay. Jis zamanay meh Ala Hazrat nay in kay khilaaf likha thah us waqt Deobandi jammat joh mashoor thee us ka aqeedah Qasim Nanotavi wali Tadhir Un Naas per nahin thah balkay sab khatam un nabiyeen ba mana aakhiri nabi mantay thay magar Qasim Nanotavi nay Khatam ba mana itsaaf zaati ba wasf e nabuwat baad meh likha. Aur yeh baad meh Deobandi Jammat ka aqeedah bana. Qasim Nanotavi sahib bee Deobandi'at meh ek new concept peda keeya yehni khatam ba mana itsaaf zaati ba wasf e nabuwat aur yeh new concept joh baad meh ahay un meh mashoor huwa aur un ka aqeedah bana. Issee tera Ismailiyyah, Kazzabiyyah, Shaytaniyyah, Qasimiyyah [Khatamiyyah] yeh sab firqay mainstream Deobandi nahin thay magar yeh baad meh mojmo'ee tor per ek firqa kay nazriyat banay jissay aaj ham Deobandiat say jantay hen. Jis ka saboot agar aap nay dekhna ho toh Kitab Zalzala per lenh. Is kitaab meh us zamanay kay mainstream Deobandi firqay kay aqahid aur us kay saath hee joh aqahid o nazriyat Qasim nanotavi, Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Ismail Dehalvi, Khalil Ambethvi kay aqahid ek side per aur dosri side par puranay zamanay kay Deobandiyoon kay aqahid dosri side per. Jis say sabat hota heh kay Ismail Dehalvi say pehlay walay Deobandiyoon kay aqahid aur thay aur joh aaj kay Deobandi hen in kay aqahid aur hen. Alhasil asal waja Sayyidi Ala Hazrat nay in ko ilada firqeh likha yeh thee kay us zamanay meh jistera aaj yeh sab firqeh combine ho ker ek firqay kay naam say mashoor huway hen esa firqa Sayyidi Ala Hazrat kay zamanay meh nahin thah. Is leyeh Sayyidi Ala Hazrat nay Ahle Sunnat say baghawat balkay apnay haqiqi deobandi nazriyat say baghawat kee waja say in ko ilada ilada firqa likha. Jistera aaj Deobandi Hayati mainstream Deobandi ginnay jatay hen aur Mamati Deobandi biddati zindeeq. Sirf doh masail per in ko ilada firqa tehraya gaya heh. Aur Qasim Nanotavi sahib aur in panch hazrat nay toh beesiyoon esa nazirayat pesh keeyeh hen joh Ahle Sunnat aur Deoband kee asal kay khilaaf hen toh is ko ilada firqa likha kesay jaiz nahin? Yeh aur baat heh kay yeh saray nazriyat jin ko Ala Hazrat nay ilada ilada firqa likha zamana baad meh ek hee firka meh aa ker jama huway jissay aaj ham Deobandiat kehtay hen. Deobandi Hayati aur Deobandi Mamati ek ee firqa kee doh branchen hen. Hayati firqa Mamatiyoon ko Deobandi nahin manta aur Mamati firqa hayatiyoon ko Deobandi tasleem nahin krta. Masla sama e mauta aur hayat bad az wafat kay doh masloon per ek dosray ko firqa Deobandiyya say kharaj ker detay hen balkay new firqa tehratay hen. Sayyidi Ala Hazrat nay is'see bunyaad per, yehni chand ikhtilafat kee bunyaad per Deobandiyoon meh mukhtalaf firqoon ka zikr keeya. Aur un ko Deobandi Ismailiyyah, Deobandi Qasimiyyah, Deobandi Kazzabiyyah, Deobandi Shaytaniyyah aur Ghair muqalideen kay firqay ko Wahhabi Nazeeriyyah tehraya. Jab yeh waziya ho gaya kay Ala Hazrat nay keun in ko ilada firqeh tehraya aur yeh ek firqa kesay banay. Abh agar kohi sayyidi Ala Hazrat kee shaan meh bakwas keray toh us kay maan kay kirdaar aur us kay haml per shak hona chahyeh. Keun kay halal asal wala kabi bughz e Ala Hazrat meh mubtila nahin ho sakta. [Editing: Is Paragraph: "Deobandi Hayati aur Deobandi Mamati ek ee ... aur Ghair muqalideen kay firqay ko Wahhabi Nazeeriyyah tehraya." ko aakhar meh laya. Aur ibarat wazia nahin thee is leyeh us meh in ilfaaz ka izafa keeya: "... balkay new firqa tehratay hen." aur "... yehni chand ikhtilafat kee bunyaad per ..."] Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Commonly it is believed that Wahhabism is a monoliathic sect with uniform rules and principles. This is a misconception amongst Ahle Sunnat as well as the adherents of Wahhabism. The reality is that Wahhabism differs from person to person. This maybe not apparent when talking about the creed but it is clear from the asool, principle, which the adherents of this sect employ. Only on principles of determining exclusivity there are five major methodologies employed. Wahhabi Principle Of Determining Shirk & Exclusivity: Generally the heretics of Pakistan the ghair-muqallideen used the principle: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk.” and this faction does not have principle of exclusivity rather they determine Shirk based on usage of word for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and His creation. The slightly more advance and intelligent Arab heretics employ: 'A exclusive attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk ...” with exceptive clause: “... except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.' with their principle of exclusivity: 'Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).' Its worth knowing that some heretics will state all the attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) are unique to Him and this becomes apparent when one discusses with them about Tawheed. In this group there are two factions; a) determines uniqueness based on the rule: Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).[1]', determines uniqueness based on attribute's relationship to creation and Creator. The second group also splits into two factions; i) determines exclusiveness based on meanings of words[2], ii) determines exclusiveness of a attribute based on the meaning and meanings relationship between the Creator and His creation[3]. And then there is unspeakable terror, the monster whos name should not be mentioned openly, the one who devours the Ahlul Ilm, the hippie[4]. The Six Methodologies: Methodology- One: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk.” Methodology - Two: “A exclusive attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.” Exclusivity of a attribute is determined with principle: “ Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Methodology - Three: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.” And their methodology of exclusivity: “Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Methodology - Four: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.” Principle of judging exclusivity: “Exclusiveness of attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is based on meanings of words.[5] Ibn Taymiyyan Methodology: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.” The rule of determining exclusivity: “Exclusiveness of a attribute is based on the meaning and meanings relationship between the Creator and His creation. Hippie Methodology: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith. Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and exclusiveness of attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is also based on wordily meanings as well as based on the meanings relationship between the Creator and His creation.” Refuting Heretical Principles: Methodology - One, states: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk.” Using this principle to determine Shirk in belief would prove to be disasterous. Note, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Rauf, Raheem: “Indeed it was great (heavy) except for those whom Allah guided. And Allah would never make your faith to be lost. Truly, Allah is the most Kind, the most Merciful towards mankind.” [Ref: 2:143] based on the principle: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk.” it would be Shirk to believe a creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is rauf, raheem (i.e. kind, merciful). Yet the Quran states Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is kind, merciful: “Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He is anxious over you; for the believers he is kind and merciful.” [Ref: 9:128] Holding to the Ahle Hadith principle and not believing Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is kind, merciful is major act of disbelief. Methodology - Two, states: “A exclusive attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.” Problematic aspect in traditional Wahhabi methodology is the manner how exclusivity is determined: “Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).” The exclusivity of a attribute is not determined based on presence of evidence for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or based on absence of proof for His creation. Rather a attribute which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) shares with creation can be exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). All attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are Zaati meaning; personel, His own, not granted to Him by another. If Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) believed to be rauf, raheem (i.e. kind, merciful): “Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He is anxious over you; for the believers he is kind and merciful.” [Ref: 9:128] in understanding of Zaati. Meaning believed to be; kind, merciful, personaly, by his own self, without Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granting him the qualities of kind, merciful it would be major Shirk. Yet this principle of determining exclusivity for a attribute: “Every attribute not substantiated for a creation in Qur’an or Ahadith but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).” would validate a polytheistic belief because the words kind, merciful are established in Qur’an for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam). This simple exercise establishes two fundamental points; i) the Wahhabi methodology of determining exclusivity is invalid, ii) and in its invalid form it legitimizes major Shirk. Methodology - Three, states: “All attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are exclusive attributes. Any attribute of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk …” and this far it is exactly same as Ahlal Hadeeth methodology the difference is of exceptive clause: ”… except what is affirmed for a creation in Qur’an or Hadith.” Note that the first part of the statement says all attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are exclusive to Him and this is correct. Indeed shared or unshared attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are exclusive to Him. In meaning of Zaati, Qulli, Qadeemi, Ghair-izni, Ghair-Makhlooq, Haqiqi but not exclusive in meaning of; unsubstantiated for creation but substantiated for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Methodology - Four, states: “Exclusiveness of attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is based on meanings of words.” In this methodology if a attribute was established with evidence for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and His creation then it would be Shirk to assign to this attribute a common meaning. To illustrate the point better; the mawla has been used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) in Quran in meaning of; Lord, Master, Protector, Supporter, Patron, Helper, so to avoid the; possbility of Shirk or the heretic would put it 'root to shirk' they would interpret the word mawla for creation in meaning of; servant, freed slave and most likely translate the word mawla according to the context of the statement. The problematic aspect of this methodology is that if the word mawla is understood in meaning of protector, supporter, patron, helper, for a creation the result would be major Shirk, or edict of Mushrik will be screamed. The error of this methodology is established from the fact; asal, foundation, bunyad, the usage of word mawla for creation is established hence every meaning of mawla is plausible for whom the word is used not just a specific meaning. And usage of word mawla in a specific context may denotes a specific meaning but that specific meaning cannot restrict, limit the asal to a specific meaning because Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said: “I have been sent with ‘Jawami-al-Kalim ‘ (i.e. the shortest expression with the widest meaning) and ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H378] Therefore all the meanings of mawla can be applied to a creation for whom the word mawla was used by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam).[6] Ibn Taymiyyan Methodology, states: “Exclusiveness of a attribute is based on the meaning and meanings relationship between the Creator and His creation.” I only know a little about Ibn Taymiyyan method of determining exclusivity. Analysis of his excerpt revealed Ibn Taymiyyah the anthropomorphist, used Qur’an [atleast in that excerpt] to establish exclusivity in meaning of Qadeem (i.e. eternal) for Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) attribute of Al Hayy (i.e. the Living) and established for His creation ephemeral life.[7] In simple language Ibn Taymiyyah established Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as the Living from eternity, without beginning and established for His creation he established living with beginning and end. This was the methodology of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat that proceded him and those who came after him. It is unknown to me whether he approved and employed the comprehensive exclusivity determining methodology of Ahle Sunnat or whether he practice selectivism on basis of evidence of Quran, hadith.[8] The real major difference between Ahle Sunnat and Ibn Taymiyah on issue of Shirk is; his classification of Shirk into Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah. This classification is basis on which Wahhabiyyah base their heretical methodologies of determining exclusivity and these simplified concepts are used to level the charge of major Shirk against the Muslims.[9] Hippie Methodology,states: … It is mish-mash of everything and all the criticism which is levelled against its derivitives can be employed against one who adheres to this methodology. With this one can also cross examine the principles of determining exclusivity and point out the contradictions. According to a principle of exclusivity affirming a attribute for creation would be legitimate and would not effect aqeedah of Tawheed but according to another it would be Shirk. It would be best if these incompatibilities for hippie methodology are deciphered by the readers. Ahle Sunnat’s Principle Of Exclusivity: Ahle Sunnat hold to the position; all attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) shared with creation or unshared with creation are exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and assigning any attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in absolute sense to a creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. Ahle Sunnat determine perfection and exclusivity for attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) according to meaning of; zaati (i.e. personnel), qadeemi (i.e. eternal), ghair izni (i.e. requiring no permission), qulli (i.e. absolute), la mahdood (i.e. unlimited), ghair-makhlooq (i.e. uncreated), haqiqi (i.e. intrinsic). If a attribute is assigned to a creation in any of these meanings then major Shirk would occur. Conclusions: Four exclusivity determining methodologies of Wahhabiyyah are invalid and incomplete because the methods of determining exclusivity in all of them produce result which contradict the teaching of Qur’an and Ahadith. The hippie methodology is product of a mind which has no sense or ability to reason therefore a sensible its by default discounted. Ibn Taymiyyan methodology is in-part representation of Ahle Sunnat’s methodology of validating concepts of Tawheed understood with kalam of mutakallimeen but this methodology requires great deal of knowledge of Quran and ahadith. Which the modern Muslim and a lay person would find too difficult to learn hence the kalam methodology of exclusivity is the quickest method of protecting oneself from Shirk of attributes.[10] Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] Even though this type individual may say he believes in all attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) are exclusively His but his methodology of figuring out the exclusivity indicates otherwise. - [2] The word Mawla has been used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) in meaning of; Lord, Master, Protector, Supporter, Patron and Helper. This faction would determine exclusivity of attribute of Mawla in meanings of; Lord, Master, Protector, Supporter, Patron, Helper therefore this faction would not assign the same meanings to those verses, hadith, in which the word mawla has been used for a creation. And if Mawla is assigned to a creation in any of the mentioned meanings; Lord, Master, Protector, Supporter, Patron, Helper then they would deem it Shirk. - [3] This faction first determines the meaning in which the word Mawla has been used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala); Lord, Master, Protector, Supporter, Patron, Helper and also considers meanings in which it can be used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). They would say Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is the Mawla of believers: “Nay, Allah is your Mawla and He is the Best of helpers.” [Ref: 3:150] as well as the disbelievers: “There every person will know what he had earned before and they will be brought back to Allah; their rightful Mawla and their invented false deities will vanish from them.” [Ref: 10:30] in meaning of Wali; Protector, Supporter, Guardian and Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is only Wali without a wali: “And say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a offspring and Who has no partner in (His) Dominion, nor He is low to have a Wali. And magnify Him with all magnificence." [Ref: 17:111] In conclusion this faction would consider exclusivity of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) being Wali, Mawla in meaning of Him not having a Wali/Mawla and everyone else in creation having Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has their Wali/Mawla. - [4] Just as the hippies do not have a fix location of residence, this faction within Wahhabiyyah is one which does not adhere any fixed set of principle of exclusivity instead this faction moves from principle to principle and feeds and feuls on the arguments of his opponents. This type of individual is well versed but not in a particular methodology of exclusivity. He has read everything, anything on the subject of determining exclusivity because it was labelled Salafi material, or a Salafi approved. As a result such individual is the most confused, irrational, illogical, stupid, foolish in the matters of religion and definitely the most difficult if not impossible to corner. Therefore do not engage such a person in discussion twice if you made the mistake first time. Its better to provide written material to such individual and if one has to engage such idiot, foolish person in discussion then have him/her write the principle, the position on the issue. And confirm with him/her if there is any other principle that is part of what is written if he/she state there is then have that in written form as well. Only procede with dicussion when the basic principles, rules, have been written and confirmed. If he agrees to anything write the point which he agrees with and have his signiture next to it. Trust me he/she will refute it even after agreeing to it few minutes later or atleast say something which will contradict what he has agreed with. This breed is common and usually will be the first one you will encounter. Vast majority of these individuals belongs to Pakistani Wahhabi sub-sect called Ahle Hadith. - [6] Part One: I am very well aware of the fact that Rawafiz will be jubilant with this concession because the word mawla has been used for Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh) in the famous hadith: "man kuntu mawlah fahaza aliyun mawla" meaning; “Whomsoever I am mawla, Ali is also his mawla.” and they interpret the word in meaning of Master, Leader, to support their belief that Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) was the first Khalifah of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Note in another hadith Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said to Zaid that he is Hadhrat Ali's (radiallah ta'ala anhu) and Prophet's (sallalahua layhi was'sallam) mawla: “The Prophet judged that she should be given to her aunt, and said that the aunt was like the mother. He then said to 'All, "You are from me and I am from you", and said to Ja'far, "You resemble me both in character and appearance", and said to Zaid, "You are our brother and Mawlana (i.e. our mawla)." [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H863] So on the basis of mawla meaning master if anyone had the right to Khilafat after Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) then it was Hadhrat Zaid (radiallah ta'ala anhu) who was mawla of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh) and all those who were present. Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) was not a Khalifah therefore Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) being mawla (i.e. master) cannot imply Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh) being Khalifah of companions because the sentence implies Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is also same as Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh). Part Two: Hazrat Umar (radiallah ta'ala anhu) visited Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) questioned: “... 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it?'“ To which Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) replied: “... 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka'ba this year?'“ I said, 'No.' Then Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said: 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it.'” [Ref: Bukhari, B50, H891] Then Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta'ala anhu) visited Hadhrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah ta'ala anhu), asked the same questions and got exactly the same replies. Prophet's (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) reply of yes to question: “... 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it?'“ and then his question:“... 'but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka'ba this year?'“ makes it clear what Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) has said in mutlaq (i.e. general) cannot be termed muqayyid (i.e. specific). Therefore Hadhrat Zaid (radiallah ta'ala anhu) being mawla cannot be given a particular meaning to prevent him from being master of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu). Now if someone was to argue mawla does not mean master for this x y z reasons the response would be; did Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) tell you he isn't the master of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh)? Which he hasn't therefore your deductions have no gaurantee until mutlaq has been made muqayyid by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) or by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). In other words Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) or Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) terms Hazrat Zaid's (radiallah ta'ala anhu) being mawla in particular meaning explicitly. - [7] It is unknown whether he accepted the concepts of Tawheed presented in language of kalam by mutakalimeen. It should be noted that even though the technical jargon employed by mutakalimeen is foreign to Qur’an and Ahadith but it does not contradict the teaching of Tawheed. Instead it highlights the finer details and aids the understanding of Tawheed. Therefore I see no reason why Ibn Taymiyyah would oppose the concepts of Tawheed which the kalam jargon of mutakallimeen teaches. Knowing Ibn Taymiyyah’s anti-Kalam stance I can state with confidence; he may have opposed the use of kalam jargon but could not have in sober, sane, mind opposed the teaching the kalam jargon imparts. - [8] Ibn Taymiyyah’s contribution toward asool of deen and asool of his methodology is zilch, nothing hence it makes it impossible to determine what position he held. The only treaties which indicate his asool are ‘Aqeedah Hamawiyyah’ and ‘Aqeedah Wasitiyyah’ and these two treaties are basis of humanisation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wrapped in verbal gymnastics. Reality of which feeble and simple minds cannot penetrate, as a result they dawn the garb of kufr thinking its prestine Islam. - [9] If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits a comprehensive article will be written to explain the difference between the categorisation of Shirk by Ahle Sunnat and Ibn Taymiyyah’s innovative classification of Shirk. And how Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab had taken Ibn Taymiyyah’s classification of Shirk to next logical step to support the revival of his 17th century Kharijism. - [10] Every Muslim should learn the evidences for each concept of Tawheed and Shirk. The simplicity of Ahle Sunnat’s methodology is for ease of learning and protecting oneself from Shirk. Not for sake of distancing people from book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam). The responsibility of gaining knowledge of book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is upon each and every individual. This responsibility is no where greater then learning the aqeedah of Tawheed and Shirk, with the evidences from Quran ,Sunnah.

Introduction: Bassam Zawadi a Wahhabi appologist against Christians is quite well known over the internet. He along with his Wahhabi co-religionists believe that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) was not granted all the knowledge in Quran, not explained all the verses and their meanings in the Quran. Their aqeedah is that verses mutashabiyat and the meaning of haroof e muqat'taat has not been taught to Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Where as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah holds to the beliefe that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as ulul albab have been granted the knowledge of such verses especially the companions. Back Ground: A Sunni by the name of Farid on Marifah.net forum in response to Bassam Zawadi wrote: “Bassam, the 'expert' in Ash'ari Sunni theology just 'asks questions' and then proceeds to answer on behalf of everyone himself. Anyhow this has been discussed on this forum in the past. Here Sidi Abu Adam mentioned: "The Prophet (sallaļļaahuˆalayhiwasallam) definitely knew the meaning of anything ascribed to Aļļaah in the scriptures, but what is mutasħaabih (ambiguous) to some is not to others, as I indicated above." Here he also says the same: "Note, however, that the prophet and at least some of the companions definitely knew the exact meaning of all statements ascribing attributes to Allaah – it is just that some of them became ambiguous to later generations and thus became mutasħaabihaat." So the question is not - did the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or some of his companions know the meaning of wajh as ascribed to Allah in these verses (which we know they did) - the real question is that do these salafis have this specific information from them to hand and if so, could they kindly share it.” And in sectarian typing rampage Bassam Zawadi in response on ahlalhdeeth.com wrote: “Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said that the Prophet and some of the Sahabah knew some of the meanings? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital doctrine? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details, but some how managed to fail to provide us information about Allah Himself? Sorry Faqir.... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” And here is a reconstruction of his above murderous rampage put in the context by me; note in the brackets insertions are mine: “Where is the evidence for all this [that Prophet and atleast some companions knew some of mutashabiyat]? Who on earth ever said that the Prophet and some of the Sahabah knew some of the meanings [of mutashabiyat]? How come this [known] information [of mutashabiyat] was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital [information about mutashabiyat which are vital for] doctrine? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details [fiqh and other aspects ...], but some how managed to fail to provide us information about [mutashabiyat which are attributes of] Allah Himself? Sorry Faqir.... but you sound ridiculous and [if Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as the companions knew the meaning of mutashabiyat and despite that they failed to perserve the meaning of these verses by passing them on to future generations then you're] basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures." After reading this response of Bassam I contacted a old friend of mine al-boriqee who I had good brotherly relationship in past on Understanding-Islam forum owned and run by Moiz Amjad. There I explained to him that Bassam Zawadi does not believe that knowledge of all of Quran was given, taught to Prophet (salallahu alayhi was'sallam) and this belief is kuffr. It was after brother al-boriqee's response that I thought I write this article to explain the error what Bassam believes and support the beliefe of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Muslimeen in light of Quran to establish proof against this batal creed. So the Muslims do not fall into this kuffri innovation and warn others of this creed which leads to apostacy. Part One: Bassam Zawadi. Analysis Of Bassam Zawadi's Questions: 1)“Where is the evidence for all this [that Prophet and atleast some companions knew some of mutashabiyat]?” Implication of his this question is; that there is no evidence to substantiate that some of the companions and Prophet had [as bassam wrote] some of knowledge of mutashabiyat. Lets for argument sake assume that what he means is; there is a lot of evidence that knowledge of mutashabiyat was known to Prophet and companions and also in his next question: “Who on earth ever said that the Prophet and some of the Sahabah knew some of the meanings [of mutashabiyat]?” he also means: everyone said Prophet knew the meaning of mutashabiyat, then his third question: 'How come this information [of mutashabiyat] was not passed down to us then?' implies; had there been such knowledge then it would have been passed to us and its absence is proof that there was no knowledge of mutashabiyat. 2)“Who on earth ever said that the Prophet and some of the Sahabah knew some of the meanings [of mutashabiyat]?” The implications of this question are that no one has ever stated that Prophet and some of companions knew some meanings of mutashabiyat. Now for sake of argument lets against all odds say with this question his implications was that everyone said Prophet knew the meaning of mutashabiyat then his next question: 'How come this information [of mutashabiyat] was not passed down to us then?' Implies that had there been such knowledge then it would have been passed to us and its absence is proof that there was no knowledge of mutashabiyat. 3)“How come this [known] information [of mutashabiyat] was not passed down to us then?” Putting his questions in context based on the implication, If the meaning of mutashabiyat was known to Prophet and companions then; how come this information of mutashabiyat was not passed down to the Muslims in general. Note in his first two ques he implies ignorance of Prophet and his companions and in his third question based on the built up assumption of ignorance he asks the third question. Does this imply that Bassam believes Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) knew the meaning of mutashabiyat or does it imply that Prophet and his companions didnt know the meanings hence they didnt pass them on to us? 4)“Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital [information about mutashabiyat which are vital for] doctrine?” Part one; Now if someone said; no they didnt fail in perserving the knowledge and in light of this question: 'How come this [known] information [of mutashabiyat] was not passed down to us then?' in the context it could; Prophet and some companions knew but they didnt pass on the information on to perserve it. If Prophet knew and he taught some companions. Yet no one knows the meaning of the ayaat mutashabiyat at present then conlusion is [according to Ashari's] Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions are bunch of failures because despite knowing they failed to perserve the meaning by passing it on to next generation.[1] Also with answer; no they didnt fail in perserving the knowledge, he would go back to que: 'How come this information [of mutashabiyat] was not passed down to us then?' And this would imply; had Prophet and companions knew the meanings of mutashabiyat then it would have been passed on to us and absence of such is proof they didnt know the meaning of mutashabiyat. Part two; And if someone said; yes they failed to perserve the meaning of mutashabiyat, first he would accuse them of kuffr and then he would respond with the next question; They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details [of fiqh and other aspects ...], but some how managed to fail to provide us information about [mutashabiyat which are attributes of] Allah Himself? Which would imply if there was something about mutashabiyat then I assure you we would have had something with us. And we have nothing of this sort in sahih authentic sources giving meanings of mutashabiyat hence there was nothing known to Prophet and nothing known to companions about mutshabiyat. Putting is differently; had Prophet known something about mutashabiyat he would have taught sahabah and they would have narrated the meaning of mutashabiyat which would reach us. Since Prophet didnt know, he didnt teach the Sahabah, and they didnt pass it on to us, and consequently we know nothing about the meanings of mutashabiyat. In both answers, no, or yes, Ashari was trapped in plot of Bassam. It's heads, Bassam wins, tails Ashari looses. This question is like; will you stop beating your wife up? Yes, means he is accepting he is beating his wife up, and no also means he is admitting to beating his wife up but wont stop beating her. So cleverly worded questions and the answer to trickery might dupe unsuspecting, non-critical mind into affirming something reprehensible but it does not nessciate that actually person believes what he was tricked into. Word games can only trick people into something, and people who are aided by shaytan can find many ways of extracting supporting evidence for their allegations (i.e. Ashari's believe Prophet and his companions failed in perserving the Quran) and you have seen example of it. I don't think Bassam is intelligent enough to think it through in so much detail about the out come of answers, rather he would have jumped at anyone of the two yes or no and continued from there. 5)“They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details [fiqh and other aspects ...], but some how managed to fail to provide us information about [mutashabiyat which are attributes of] Allah Himself?” This question implies absence of proof that meaning of mutashabiyat was taught to Prophet, companions is proof that there isnt if there was then we would have had it in our possession especially when such detailed knowledge was passed on to us. 6)“Sorry Faqir.... but you sound ridiculous and [if Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as the companions knew the meaning of mutashabiyat and despite that they failed to perserve the meaning of these verses by passing them on to future generations then you're] basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” What he means here is sory Faqir if Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as the companions knew the meaning of mutashabiyat and despite that they failed to perserve the meaning of these verses by passing them on to future generations then you're basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures and you Faqir sound ridiculous arguing that they had known the meaning of mutashabiyaat. Refuting Claim: Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) Didn't Know Meaning Of Mutashabiyaat: Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: "... can do no harm in the least. For Allah hath sent down to thee the Book and wisdom and taught thee what thou Knewest not (before): And great is the Grace of Allah unto thee." [Ref: 3:114]This verse means that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has taught Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) the knowledge within Quran and this knowledge was not know to Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) before. In another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) explicitly states He taught Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) the Quran: “Ar'Rahman (i.e. Most Gracious Allah)! It is He Who has taught the Qur'an.” [Ref: 55:1 – 2] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) instructs Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) not recite Quran quickly after Jibraeel (alayhis salam) because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will explain to him the Quran: "Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur'an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it: But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated):Nay more, it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear): ..." [Ref: 75: 16 – 19] Further more Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) not only understood the entire Quran himself but he was instructed also taught it to his companions. Hadhrat Ibrahim (alayhis salam) and Hadhrat Ismail (alayhis salam) made the fallowing dua for Arabs:"Our Lord! send amongst them an Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise." [Ref: 2:129] and this dua was answered: “A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Messenger of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge.” [Ref:2:251] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has made it clear that He has taught Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) the meaning, explanation of entire Quran. This explaination of Quran includes verses of mutashabiyaat as well as haroof al muqat'taat. Had Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) not taught Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) the meaning of mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat then Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) would have made takhsees in the verses of Quran by stating exceptions (i.e. taught all the Quran except the mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat) absence of such exceptions is proof that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) taught the entire Quran to Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) including the meaning of haroof al muqat'taat and ayaat mutashabiyaat. Hence he knew the meaning of mutashabiyaat as well as haroof al muqat'taat and he did indeed teach them to some of his companions otherwise if he had not taught them then the hokam of verses is not fullfiled by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). The companions who learnt meaning of mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat passed on the knowledge of them to those who wished to know and those who showed no interest in learning about meaning of these verses they left them. The companions considered the knowledge of ayaat al mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat as knowledge which does not benefit and evidence of this is the fact that; Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) discouraged the pursuite of this knowledge and pointed that those who pursue this subject wanting to know its meaning have perversity, have sickness, have discease in their hearts. Also if it was beneficial knowledge Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) would have explained the meaning of these verses in Quran itself because nature of Quran is that it interprets it self. Yet in regard of interpretation of mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat no explicit explanation is given. Therefore it was knowledge which was not going to benefit the Sahabah in any way hence the majority avoided the subject all togather. Refuting Bassam's Implications Of Question Four: Bassam's assumption based batal allegation against my Ashari brother Faqir was; Faqir believes and Ashari scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah believe Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as the companions failed to perserve the teaching regarding Mutashabiyaat. This was a out right slander; none of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah believe this. Rather Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah comprising of Ashari and the Maturidi schools of thought hold to the position that knowledge was not learnt by many Sahabah; the majority stayed clear of learning about mutashabiyaat and minority learnt. In the first three generations and the suceeding generations the patern remained the same. The majority did not pursue the knowledge of mutashabiyaat because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states in the Quran regarding Mutashabiyaat verses: “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.”[Ref: 3:7] Note two things in the verse; one reason for companions not learning the knowledge of mutashabiyat was that they feared what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) stated about one who asks about mutashabiyat: “But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, ...” but the verse also affirms that there are men of understanding who will grasp the message of Quran in general, and in the context of verse; the meaning of mutashabiyat: “... and none will grasp the Message [of entire book/ of mutashabiyaat] except men of understanding.” The plain and simple fact is that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) knew, and taught some companions and others and tabiyeen and tabi'tabiyeen were disintrusted in the subject because of what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) stated in the Quran about perversity of heart of those who pursue this course of knowledge hence they neglected this aspect of aqeedah with good intentions of obeying the instruction of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala): “And pursue not that of which you have no knowledge; for surely the hearing, the sight, the heart all of those shall be questioned of.” [Ref: 17:36] Those who were taught about the mutashbiyaat passed on what they were taught because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) instructed the teaching of knowledge: “But teach (the Message): for teaching benefits the Believers.” [Ref: 51:55] Those who knew and were asked about Mutashabiyaat; they concealed nothing because Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) informed the companions:"He who is asked about knowledge and conceals it will be bridled on the Day of Judgment with a bridle of fire." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B25, H3650] Hence it is foolish to say the Prophet and companions didnt perserve the knowledge of mutashabiyat those who knew did their part but others didnt want to learn it because of what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) stated about purseuing such knolwedge. And those who learnt were in minority hence the understanding of minority became disputed by heretics with argument that majority of Sahabah, Tabiyeen and Tab'tabiyeen didnt teach this. Conclusion: The real deal, the grand question, on basis of which Bassam wanted to refute was: Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital [information about mutashabiyat which are vital for] doctrine? This question was one which was most important on basis of which Bassam wanted to prove that if Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) knew the meaning of mutashabiyat then he would have taught the Sahabah and they would have passed it on to us. And absence of such proof is evidence that Prophet didnt know nor did the companions the meaning of mutashabiyat. And this very beliefe is kuffr because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has stated in the Quran that He has explained the entire Quran to Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) Himself. Not only that; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) taught the entire Quran including the meaning of mutashabiyaat as well as haroof al muqat'taat to some of companions. Any who disbelieves what is established from clear verses of Quran (i.e. Prophet sallalahu alayhi was'sallam knowing the meaning of entire Quran including haroof al muqat'taat and ayaat mutashabiyaat) such person has disbelieved in Quran. Even if such individual was to make takhsees on logical, rational basis even then his kuffr would be established and no excuse of mistake would be accepted. A takhsees of quoted verses (i.e. Prophet didnt know mutashabiyaat and meaning of haroof al muqat'taat) is only acceptable if it is based on evidence of Quran or Hadith and in the absence of such evidence its kuffr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnote: - [1] Bassam alledges against the Ashari's position; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as some of his companions knew the meaning of ayaat Mutashabiyaat is proof that Ashari's are calling Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions bunch of failures because they knew yet failed to passed on the knowledge. Primarily the fact is he deduced this based on his own questions and no one has ever hinted that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) or his companions are bunch of failures, nor anyone from Ashariyya and Maturidiyya have ever called them failures [or deleriants] rather this is production of Bassam Zawadi's shaytani imagination. As for his judging of position of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah regarding companions and their passing of knowledge based on his deleriant reasoning it is against the established Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Determining one's belief based on assumptions and delusional deductions and not what the person expresses with his tongue is against the teaching of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Once a companion Usama bin Zaid had killed a person in battle who had with his tongue professed: "La ilaha illal-Lah." Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) disaproved of his this action when the incident was narrated to him: "O Usama! Did you kill him after he had said "La ilaha ilal-Lah?" I said, "But he said so only to save himself." The Prophet kept on repeating that so often that I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H568] This proves that aqeedah is, faith is, Islam is, based on what a person professes with his tongue and he is to be judged according to his profession and not logical, rational, reasoning, or assumptions or deductions. And lastly the readers should be aware of the fact that Bassam Zawadi employed the Khariji principle of judging the aqeedah of a person based on logical, rational, assumptions and deductions. The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah does not practice this rather we judge the aqeedah based on what person professes with tongue.

Introduction: Bassam Zawadi a Wahhabi apologist, while writing against the belief of tafweed al mana (relegating the meaning of ayaat mutashabiyaat) wrote it implies that Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah (i.e. Ashariyya, Maturidiyya) of believing;[1] Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and his esteemed companions are bunch of failures. And basis for his accusation is; according to Ashariyya Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and some companions knew the meaning of ayaat Mutashabiyaat. Yet they did not pass on the meanings therefore Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) failed to deliver the message and companions failed to preserve the knowledge because they failed to pass on the knowledge. The object of this article would be to inform the readers of what the Ashariyya, Maturidiyya actually believe and what were the reasons which made it difficult to impossible to ascertain the meaning of Mutashabiyaat. And then place this historical account into context of what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has destined for Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallalalhu alayhi was'sallam). Maturidi And Ashari Creeds In Historical Perspective: The Maturidiyyah hold the belief that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as some of his companions also knew the knowledge of Mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat. Over the period of time that knowledge was lost and what was passed on is tainted by disputes and lack of authentic narrations therefore they do not make interpret the mutashabiyaat. Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) had stated: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone interprets the Book of Allah in the light of his opinion even if he is right, he has erred.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B25, H3644] therefore without certain knowledge and certain proof the scholars of Maturidi creed did not interpret the ayaat mutashabiyaat nor haroof al muqat'taat but practiced Tafweedh (i.e. passing the Arabic words without interpreting them) negating the apparent meaning of ayaat mutashabiyaat because it contradicted with ayaat which are muhkamaat (i.e. clear in meaning and interpretation). The Ashariyyah have that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) was explained the meaning of mutashabiyaat as well as haroof al muqat'taat and believe that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) taught the meaning to some of his companions. They differ in regards to interpretation of ayaat of mutashabiyaat with Maturidiyyah. They interpreted Mutashabiyaat using the little evidence which was passed on from tabi'tabiyeen and succeeding generations to protect the faith of laymen from the missionary activity of anthropomorphic sect who attributed to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) bodily parts consisting of material.[2] At present the sect of anthropomorphic does not exist but a offshoot of that sect exists known popularly as Wahhabis hence the Ashariyyah deem that there is need for the continuing the interpretation of ayaat mutashabiyaat. In its original form the reality of Ashari creed is that they believe partly in concept of Tafweedh (i.e. relegating the attributes of Allah subhana wa ta'ala as they were revealed in Arabic) and argue that even though the knowledge of Mutashabiyat is known but not all of it. Only little knowledge is known about the interpretation of mutashabiyaat and other knowledge of mutashabiyaat remains mystery because Quran's nature is jawami al kalim. Which means that it written short but expresses vast meanings and the little they know of mutashabiyaat is from vast meanings of ayaat mutashabiyat. Decreasing Of Knowledge: Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said: “The time would draw close to the Last Hour and knowledge would decrease. The rest of the hadith is the same.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B34, H6460] in another hadith: “Religious knowledge will decrease. Religious ignorance will prevail. There will be prevalence of open illegal sexual intercourse.” [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H81] another hadith explains the reason how knowledge will decrease: “I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from (the hearts of) the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of the (religious learned men) remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray." [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H100] This decreasing of knowledge started with companions of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and evidence of happening in the life time of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is abundant in ahadith.[3] A popular hadith records companions forgetting the verses of rajm except Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta'ala anh)[4] and this is undeniable proof of decreasing of knowledge amongst the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Decreasing of knowledge is one of the signs which is manifesting it self increasingly as the time passes and the knowledge will decrease to such a level that Muslims will no longer understand the Quran: “... The Prophet mentioned a matter saying, “That will be at the time when knowledge departs.” I asked, “How can knowledge depart when we recite the Quran and teach it to our children and they will teach it to their children up till day of resurrection?” He replied, “I am astonished at you Ziyad (literally: may your mother be bereaved of you Ziyad). I thought you were the most learned man in Medina. Do not these Jews and Christians read Torah and the Injeel without knowing a thing about their contents?” [Ref: Mishkaat, Vol1, Kitabul iIm, Book Two, Page 62] in another hadith: "A time will come when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its script. Mosques will be full of worshipers, but as far as righteousness is concerned they will be empty and deserted. Their ‘Ulama’ (religious scholars) will be the worst of creatures ...” [Ref: Mishkat, Vol1, Kitabul Ilm, Book Two, Page 62] At this lowest juncture of mankind Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will lift the knowledge of Quran from the hearts, minds and mushaf's of Quran in a night: “Something will come and take the Qur’aan one night and not one aayah will be left, either in the Mushaf or in the heart of any person, but it will be taken away.” [Ref: AbrabicV - Sunan Darimi H3209] Destiny Of Muslim Ummah And Nature Of knowledge: Scholars with knowledge are passing away and not enough of them are being replaced. Muslims are disinterested in knowledge of deen and pursue careers secular knowledge of computers, business, for wordily gain. All this will eventually bring Islam and Muslims to the pitiful state; where Muslims will increasingly fallow the Jews and Christians in customs, practices, social behavior and adopt moral values of the dominant culture of Yahood o Nasara then they will be pleased with the Muslims. And Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has destined for the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) to gradually loose the knowledge of Quran. So the promise of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to establish the annihilation, destruction of end of the universe is brought about on the worst people on earth because as long as the Quran remains its knowledge will hold up the candle of light in darkness of Shirk and kuffr. Burned at a time so bright that it illuminated regions of Europe to Subcontinent and in another time its light will only illuminate the hearts of few believers who will say; 'There is no god but Allah.' and it will be enough for them to enter paradise. This loosing of precious knowledge started with the companions of beloved RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and this was what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) destined for them. And Ummah will continue to loose knowledge until nothing of the Quran remains in understanding only the script and when Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will decree the script will disappear as well. Sahabah learnt from Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and passed on what they learnt. What the majority of companions didn't pursue (i.e. meaning of mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat) was with good intention and in obedience to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) as well as Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Then the companions passed away and the majority of two succeeding generations of also ensured the practice of deen in the foot steps of companions of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). They ignored what the majority of companions ignored (i.e. knowledge regarding Mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat) and they learnt (i.e. knowledge of fiqh, nasikh wa mansookh, etc) what the majority companions learnt, and taught what they taught. The minority those who had learnt the meaning of entire Quran from Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) including ayaat mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat, taught what was taught to them. From the succeeding generations of Tabiyeen and Tabi'tabiyeen the minority scholars who knew the meaning of Mutashabiyaat and haroof al muqat'taat taught those who were interested in the knowledge. But generally did not discuss the verses due to what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) stated in the Quran about one who looks for the meanings of such verses. Those who asked about haroof al muqat'taat and mutashabiyaat they explained the meanings to them but they remained minority and the numbers of scholars of Quran who knew the meaning of mutashabiyaat as well as haroof al muqat'taat decreased continuously until the sects of Karamiyya; the sect of anthropomorphic arose. Then what little was known of mutashabiyaat became matter of dispute which has continued from early dispute and inflamed further by resurrection Khariji'ism inform of Wahhabi'ism; since its burning brighter, and hotter. Knowledge by its nature is something which has to be written, memorized, and taught for it to be preserved otherwise it will be forgotten and lost. Hence general knowledge of Islam as well as specialized knowledge which requires dedicated learning is being lifted by the will of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Some knowledge was lifted in early in history of Islam some knowledge of daily fiqh is being lifted up at present because Muslims have abandoned the practice of deen for life of this world, and its enjoyments; which is criminal and will be punished by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) on the day of judgment . The Sahabah practiced what was important and shunned learning of knowledge which would not benefit them (i.e. knowledge of mutashabiyaat, haroof al muqat'taat). They feared Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), obeyed Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and obeyed Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Hence their disinterest in learning interpretation of ayaat mutashabiyaat was obedience to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and obedience to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam). Therefore there is no blame upon them nor upon the two succeeding generations because their intentions and actions were according to Quran and instruction of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). And it is foolish to brand the companions and beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) as failures on the basis of foolish assumption that they failed to preserve the knowledge of deen. They passed on what was destined by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) for each and every single one of them. They passed on according to the plan of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala); to lift the knowledge of Quran gradually and decrease the knowledge to much that nothing of Quran remains only the script; then not even that. After that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will establish the annihilation, utter, absolute destruction of earth on it's lowest, dirtiest inhabitants. Then the Mushrikeen of Makkah and Mushrikeen of Earth[5] will get what they had asked for from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)[6]. Conclusion: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions passed on the knowledge of ayaat mutashabiyaat but those who learnt were minority. And the numbers of those who had learnt decreased with each succeeding generation until the subject became matter of dispute. This early disinterest in learning about ayaat mutashabiyaat was according to the grand plan of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) lifting of the knowledge of Quran and eventually leading to lifting of Quranic script from face of earth. Those who pursued the knowledge of Mutashabiyaat with good intention of preserving the knowledge of Quran will be rewarded by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and those who abstained considering what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) stated about those who pursue such knowledge they will be rewarded. And those who neglected learning of Quran its meanings because of dunya, its enjoyments, and failed to practice it's teachings with sound intentions they are criminals and will be punished. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] Bassam's actual words are: “Sorry Faqir.... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” Here the word 'calling' has been used to mean referring to or addressing. In either case implications of this are two; one, it means that Ashariyya believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions are actually failures. Bassam alleges that they are failure according Ashariyya because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions failed to pass on the meaning of mutashabiyaat which was known to them. In this context his accusation of Ashariyya calling them failure would imply; Ashariyya actually believe they are failures hence they call them failures by believing in tafweed al mana. And Bassam is protesting against on this is that you are calling them failures meaning insulting them with belief of tafweed al mana. And two, Ashariyya insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions because Ashari belief in tafweed al mana implies that companions failed to pass on the meaning of ayaat Mutashaybiyaat hence Ashari's believe they are failures. Now, calling anyone a failure is form of insult. And my assertion that tafweed al mana is insult is supported by Bassam's writing: “Tafweedh Al Ma'na Is An Insult to the Prophet.” because it means Prophet (sallalalhu alayhi was'sallam) and his companions failed to pass on the meaning of ayaat Mutashabiyaat hence they are failures according to Ashariyya. [Ref: Read footnote 1, Article: Refuting Bassam Zawadi: Did Prophet Knew Meaning Of Mutashabiyaat Verses?] - [2] Ibn Taymiyyah the enemy of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) took the middle course between Ashariyyah and the Mujassim (i.e. anthropomorphic) sect Hashawiyya also known as Karamiyya and Saqatiyya. He affirmed haqiqi (i.e. literal) meanings of all attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) which are Mutashabiyaat in nature. He affirmed yad haqiqi (i.e. literal hand) for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) but relegated the understanding and the what yad (i.e. hand) implies arguing I believe in no taweel (i.e. interpretation), tamtheel (i.e. likening) or ta'teel (i.e. negation) of attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). In short his position is closer to the teaching of anthropomorphic then to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah because by saying yad of Allah is haqiqi he does give it tamtheel, tashbih (i.e. likeness) to hands which Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) created while negating it. And his modern followers instead of saying yad haqiqi write 'hand of Allah' because its literal translation of the phrase yad'dullahi but the reasoning remains the same between Ibn Taymiyyah and his modern followers. Hence they are guilty of likening Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to his creation as Ibn Taymiyyah was making Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in his own image. - [3] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) told about beginning of creation till the day of judgment. Companion says one who remembered and others forgot. - [4] Shaytaan makes forget but shaytaan does not come near him hence he could not make him forget. - [5] Mushrikeen of Earth in light of hadith of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam); Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will send a musky cool wind which will take the life of all who had mustard seed worth eman in their hearts and upon the worst the worst (i.e. Mushrikeen) Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will establish the destruction, annihilation of earth. - [6] Mushrikeen of Makkah when they were warned of day destruction which would precede before the day of judgment by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) they said mockingly: “And when they said: "O Allah! If this is indeed the truth from You, then rain down stones on us from the sky or bring on us a painful torment.'' [Ref: 8:32] and Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) replies to them: “And they urge you to hasten the punishment. And if not for [the decree of] a specified term, punishment would have reached them. But it will surely come to them suddenly while they perceive not.” [Ref: 29:53] in another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: “But Allah would not punish them while you, are among them, and Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.” [Ref: 8:33] In the context of its revelation the verse means Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will not punish the Mushrikeen as long as Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was) is amongst them. To punish them Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) gave the order of emigration to Madinah but eventually the Mushrikeen asked for forgiveness from Shirk and became Muslim. Another interpretation is Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will not punish the Mushrikeen as whole until Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is alive because Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) made dua to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to withhold the punishment from Mushrikeen. So if Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) has passed away without converting the Mushrikeen Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) would have punished them collectively. Another interpretation is just as the Mushrikeen of Makkah mockingly demanded that destruction of world is brought about if Quran is from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was'sallam) is true Prophet; in the similar fashion the Mushrikeen in aakhurz zama (i.e. near the end of times) would demand from Muslims the destruction of earth, and punishment of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Before Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) brings about what they demanded; Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will take the life of believers who have mustard seed worth eman in their hearts and the gates of repentance will be closed therefore their seeking of forgiveness from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) would not be accepted by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Then Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will order the angles to fulfill what He has promised to the Mushrikeen of Makkah and Mushrikeen of Earth; the utter, absolute, annihilation of inhabitants of earth who mocked Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and disbelieved in is Prophet, in his Guidance.

Introduction: In a earlier article khadam wrote a critical analysis of Bassam Zawadi's statement which pointed to heretical infidelity in his belief; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) did not know the meaning of mutashabiyaat. And after few exchanges with al-boriqee I came to realise; I have not explained the basis of my charge properly in the article but rather gave explaination of his rehetorical undertones. So in this brief article khadam will highlight the reasoning behind charge of kufr with some examples and point out fault in reasoning of one who was insane enough to defend Bassam Zawadi’s kufr. Abu Adam & Bassam Zawadi - In Light Of Their Own Statements: In AhlalHdeeth forum the Wahhabis quoted someone called Abu Adam who is supposedly a Ashari and I suppose he would be Sunni too, he wrote: "The Prophet (sallaļļaahuˆalayhiwasallam) definitely knew the meaning of anything ascribed to Aļļaah in the scriptures, but what is mutasħaabih (ambiguous) to some is not to others, as I indicated above. Note, however, that the prophet and at least some of the companions definitely knew the exact meaning of all statements ascribing attributes to Allaah – it is just that some of them became ambiguous to later generations and thus became mutasħaabihaat." What I deduce from Abu Adam's two statements is that; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as some of his companions knew all the meanings of mutashabiyaat and some of the attributes were mutashabiyaat to some Sahabah. This known knowledge became ambiguous for laters generations. In response to this aqeedah of Abu Adam, Bassam Zawadi wrote:“Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said that the Prophet and some of the Sahabah knew some of the meanings? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital doctrine? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details, but some how managed to fail to provide us information about Allah Himself? Sorry Faqir.... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” I will not comment on or interpret in this article what Bassam Zawadi is actually stating rather I will leave both his and Abu Adams statements as they are. Hoping that after the two similar type of scenarios would actualy able a honest, objective reader to see through the line of reasoning taken by Bassam Zawadi. Bassam’s Gensis Of Misguidance: Bassam on ahlalhdeeth forum created a thread titled: “How Do We Reconcile Shaykh Uthaymeen's Statement with Surah 3:7?” In this thread he quotes the statement of Ibn Uthaymeen[1] as well as verse of Quran[2] and then proceeds to present his difficulty: “Shaykh Uthaymeen says that the mutashaabih verses could be known by people of knowledge, but Allah says that only He knows them. How to reconcile the two statements? Was Shaykh Uthaymeen speaking about something else? Jazakum Allahu Khayran” In that thread few individuals tried to reconcile the difference between Ibn Uthaymeen’s statement and the verse of the Quran[3] but failed to satisfactorily explain the issue to him. Partly they were unfamiliar with the language of the kalam and partly because of poor knowledge of Tawheed. It seems he was unsatisfied with the explainations given to him so he took the noble path of silence on a issue which he could not understand and this is a good quality. The issue which had confused him then resurfaced but this time not only he disbelieved in rasikhoona fil ilm knowing the meaning of mutashabi’at but Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well and when he was corrected he has refused to repent. Instead al-boriqee stepped up to clarify what Bassam wrote and the attempt failed miserably. Like Bassam Like Sufi: A Sufi, imaginary one, not real one, says; “Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is declared as the One because His; father died, mother died, sister died, daughter died, son died, and wife died, leaving Him behind all Alone, as the One.” And a true Salafi muwahid the purest Salafi muwahid, again a imaginary one, in context of the Sufi beliefe states: “Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said Allah is the One because His; father died, mother died, sister died, daughter died, son died, and wife died.? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital doctrine? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details, but some how managed to fail to provide us information about Allah Himself? Sorry you mushrik sufi ... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” Soon after the purest, truest Salafi states that the extremist suicide bombing Sufi blows himself up with the truest, purest Salafi. With both dead we are having to do the detective work trying to figure out the details incident. What happened before the suicide bombing by Sufi? The motive behind the criminal act and what lead to the evil Sufi to suicide bomb the purest, truest Salafi muwahid? Detective infidel: Do the questions asked by Wahhabi remotely indicate that questioner believes in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as being One as the sufi believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the One? Or is this questioning manner of a person who does not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the One in meaning of, being left Alone, as the One, after death of Allah’s mother, father, sister, daughter, son, and wife? Detective polytheist: Well it seems to me that the Sufi and Salafi did not agree on how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was the One. The Sufi believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was one because Allah’s mother, father, son, daughter, wife had died, leaving Him behind as the One. And the line of questioning taken by Salafi indicates he did not share Sufi’s conviction. Thus the Sufi gathered the hate of hundered Salafis in him and pressed botton killing himself as well as Salafi. Detective infidel: This is the only plausible explaination detective polytheist. Shia & Wahhabi Mutta Debate: Another supposition; this time a true Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat member, meaning a Wahhabi and a Shia debate about Mutta. One of the most purest Muwahid from the Wahhabi faction, absolutely free from Shirk says: “Mutta is haram because it was prohibited on the day Khaibar was conquered and Sahabah knew it was declared haram.” And totally foolish Shia who has been busy with Mutta all his life and never read Quran or Sahih authentic hadith says in response to statement of Wahhabi: “Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said that the Prophet prohibited the mutta and eating of donkey and Sahabah knew about this actually taking place? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital aspect of fiqh? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details but some how managed to fail to provide us information about something which was declared Haram by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) himself? Sorry Wahhabi.... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions as well as ahli bayt a bunch of failures.” Soon as Mutta loving Shia finishes, the Wahhabi, the purest, the truthiest, the knower of all books of hadith and the Quran, the only true Muslim refers to ahadith of Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari and establishes his point. After which the fire worshiping Shia runs away from debate and engages in more Mutta to forget his defeat. What type of individual would say what the Shia said after learning the belief of Wahhabi? A person who believes in Mutta being haram or a person who considers Mutta halal? For this debate to take place Shia and Wahhabi must hold to opposite. Therefore here Shia believes the opposite of Wahhabi: “Mutta is NOT haram because it was NOT prohibited on the day Khaibar was conquered and Sahabah knew it was NOT declared haram.” And with this belief the Shia proceeded to question to establish doubt, to establish fault in belief of Wahhabi. Bassam Zawadi Ins Perspective: When the Sufi stated: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is declared as the One because His; father died, mother died, sister died, daughter died, son died, and wife died, leaving Him behind all Alone, as the One.” Then the line of questioning taken by the Wahhabi muwahid indicated that he does not share the belief of Sufi (i.e. Allah’s family died leaving him as the One). And when the Wahhabi stated: “Mutta is haram because it was prohibited on the day Khaibar was conquered and Sahabah knew it was declared haram.”, then his Shia opponents questioning indicated that he does not believe in the creed of Wahhabi (i.e. Mutta is haram) but believes Mutta is halal. Abu Adam clearly states his belief about Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as some of the companions knowing the meanings of mutashabi’at: "The Prophet (sallaļļaahuˆalayhiwasallam) definitely knew the meaning of anything ascribed to Aļļaah in the scriptures, but what is mutasħaabih (ambiguous) to some is not to others, as I indicated above. Note, however, that the prophet and at least some of the companions definitely knew the exact meaning of all statements ascribing attributes to Allaah – it is just that some of them became ambiguous to later generations and thus became mutasħaabihaat." And Bassam’s questioning line would indicate as it did with two examples that he does not believe in Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) knowing the meaning of mutashabi’at. There are two main reasons for this; one, the opposing party must naturaly hold to the belief opposite to Abu Adam otherwise there is no reason for contention. If there is contention which there is then naturaly Bassam must have opposing view to Abu Adam and we have the belief of Abu Adam written. Therefore the opposite of Abu Adam’s belief would be; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as his companions did not know the meaning of mutashabi’at. And to discredit the belief of Abu Adam, Bassam proceeded to question with objective of discrediting the beliefe of Abu Adam.Secondly just as the Wahhabi questioned the belief of Sufi about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the One after death of His family; Bassam’s has challenged the creed of Abu Adam. And if in the context of Sufi’s belife of Tawheed the Wahhabi’s questioning insinuated; opposition, disbelieving the Sufi’s belief. Then here in this context Bassam’s questioning insinuates opposition, disbelief in Abu Adam’s belief. Conclusion: Bassam Zawadi was charged with kufr [but not declared kafir] due to his belief; Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) did not know the meaning of mutashabiyaat and he did not teach them to companions. The legitimacy of the charge of kufr has been established with logical, rational argumentation which only blind of heart will argue against. I would advise rather then attempting uncalled taweel instead bit of time is spent contemplating the consequences of defending this heretical statement. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] “Allaah, may He be blessed and exalted, has divided the Holy Qur’aan into two categories: the verses which are entirely clear and those which are not entirely clear. What is meant by those which are entirely clear is that the meaning is clear and obvious to everyone, like the heavens and earth, stars, mountains, trees, animals and so on. This is entirely clear because there is no ambiguity in its meaning. The verses which are not entirely clear are those of which the meaning is ambiguous or unknown to most people, and is known only to those who are well-versed in knowledge, such as some verses which are general in meaning and do not give details, but they are explained in detail in the Sunnah.” [Source: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/103146] - [2] “It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding.” [Ref: 3:7] - [3] The verse which caused confusion to Bassam is similar to the verse: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them [by his own self] except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf…” [Ref: 6:59] and knowledge of all ghayb in heavens as well as in earth was given to al Qalam which wrote it in clear book: “And there is nothing hidden in the heaven and the earth, but is in kitab al mubeen.” [Ref: 27:75]. In another verse granting of knowledge of ghayb by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to a Rasool (i.e. Muhammad sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is confirmed: “[Allah] the knower of the ghayb reveals to none His ghayb. Except to a Messenger whom He has chosen and then He makes a band of watching guards (angels) to march before him and behind him.” [Ref: 72:26/27] Therefore it would be foolish to argue; only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows ghayb. In light of evidence the correct aqeedah would be; only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows ghayb by His self and Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is granted the knowledge of ghayb by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Coming to the verse: “And no one knows its interpretation except Allah.“ [Ref: 3:7] it means: “And no one knows its interpretation [by His ownself] except Allah.“And the evidence for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as his companions knowing the interpretation of mutashabi’at verses is established from Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Messenger of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge.” [Ref:2:251] and prerequisite for teaching is knowledge of Quran. Hence Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) knew the interpretation of entire Quran including ambigous. He is the Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has chosen to impart Quranic knowledge of ghayb: “[Allah] the knower of the ghayb reveals to none His ghayb. Except to a Messenger whom He has chosen and then He makes a band of watching guards (angels) to march before him and behind him.” [Ref: 72:26/27]

Ek Wahhabi maulvi joh Derby kee Hasting Street ka Imam heh muj say thori dehr kay leyeh baat huwi. Bicharay nay kaha kay Hadith meh Ummat kay ilfaaz Musalmanoon kay leyeh hen aur puri Ummat kay leyeh. Khadam nay jawaban Arabian peninsula meh Shirk nah honay wali hadith pesh kee aur wazahat kee kay us waqt taq shrik nahin hoga jab taq musalman mar nah jahen [is ka saboot kitabut tawheed walay article meh heh] aur hadith say min ummati kee takhsees aur tafseel farman e RasoolAllah say kee jis say sabat huwa kay yeh hadith Araboon kay baray meh heh. Dosra hadith say sabat keeya kay yeh us waqt hoga jab musalman mar jahen gay. [is ka saboot ooper walay article meh mojood heh] Janab ko jawab meh kuch nah aya sirf damagh istimal kernay kee hujjatoon kay saath ... [lol he got bit upset with being put on tight spot so he resorted to ... damagh istimal kerna chahyeh, his tactic; pretend to be correct and give advice to opponent and ur falowers will think ur winning, lol] ... hadith kay ilfaaz mutlaq hen muqayyid kesay ker saktay ho aur us kay saath maulvi nay kaha kay Ulamah nay is hadith ko istera nahin samja jistera tum nay samja heh .... tesra point yeh thah kay yeh aakhuruz zama kee ahadith hen jin say meh yehni Muhammad Ali Razavi nay takhsees kee heh aur yeh hadith akhuruz zama kay leyeh nahin is leyeh takhsees darust nahin. Janab ko jawab deta magar us nay chup nah kee aur mujjay bolnay ka moqa nah deeya. Jab meh nay kaha kay janab ko meri baat kee samaj nahin aahi chela bol pera aur maulvi kee wazahateh kernay laga kay maulvi kia keh raha heh. Meh nay bataya kay mujjay pata heh maulvi kia keh raha heh is ko maulvi ko meray dalail kee samaj aur line of argument kee samaj nahin aahi. Meh is'see chelay kay saath maghz mari meh thah kay Wahhabi maulvi chalta bana. Khadam nay be roka nah keun kay chelay kee dokaan thee is leyeh munasab nah samja kay rokoon aur mazeed khabr loon. Yeh article us kee pehli argument yehni meri Ummat kay ilfaaz mualmanoon kay wastay hen per heh: Study Of The Word Ummah To Understand; “… The Last Hour Will Not Come Until … Tribes Of My Ummah Worship Idols.” Baqi teen points kee wazahat ek hee article meh ker doon ga, agar kohi chahay toh. Warna khadam ka samajta heh kay is kee zeroorat nahin.