MuhammedAli

Yeh Yahoodi fitrat Deobandi aur Wahhabiyoon ka pesha heh. Uqabir Ulamah joh dunya jeetay jagtay chaltay phirtay Sahih ul-aqeeda Sunni thay magr jab woh fawt ho gay toh Deobandiyoon aur Wahhabiyoon nay un kay marnay kay baad unki kitaboon mein tarmeem kar daali aur apna Deobandi/Wahhabi bana deeya. Wahhabiyoon/Deobandiyoon ki karamat heh kay fawt shuda ko convert kar kay apna ham mazhab bana letay hen. Aisay Kafiroon par lakh lanat. In Kafiroon say toh Christian Kafir achay hen kam say kam Islami dushmani mein aa kar Islami Kitaboon mein tarmeem qaat chaat nahin kartay. Magr yeh Kafir in say bi bad-tar Kafir hen.

Joh baat raazi nama wali likhi thee kay aisi sharahit hoon joh nah man-neh wali hoon ... woh sirf is soorat mein jab aap sirf talaq chahen. Agar woh raazi nama par tayar hoon toh aap shart likhen kay aap pehli/dosri aap is waqt wapis lenh gay jab aap walden ki taraf say zamanat ho kay un ki beti aynda kohi aisi harkat nah karay gi ... yehni talaq doh ... khula loon gi wali ... aur zamanat kay tor par kahen kay yeh likh denh kay larki kay maanh baap aap ki biwi ki harkatoon kay zummedar hoon gay ... aur agar woh zamanat kay khilaf karay gi toh phir ... joh rakam/pesay aap samjen woh deh saktay hen ... us ko bator e zamanat mangen ... yehni agar un ki beti nay aisa keeya tor phir walden ko zamanat kay pesay ada karnay hoon gay. Agar aap England mein rehtay hen ... ya kissi European mulk, ya America, Australia mein to phir Talaq deh denh keun kay nah aap ki biwi sudharay gi aur nah us kay waldenh. Keun kay idhar UK mein bachoon ka khana peena kapray taleem gar sab kuch goverment pay kar deti heh ... is wasteh aurat ko kohi fikr nahin. Joh solution mein nay bataya heh woh sirf Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, waghayra mein rehnay wali auratoon par kamyab ho skta heh. Bachay piyaray hotay hen. Mein kabi tassawar bi nahin kar sakta keh bachoon say door hoon magr mein nay 2 hadden mutayyin ki hen: aik biwi ko bardasht karnay ki, aur dosri bachoon ki waja say biwi ko bardasht karnay ki. Biwi ko bardasht karnay wali hadd thori low heh ... magr bachoon wali thori high ... magr aik hadd heh ... aur dosri ko biwi jab bi par kar deh ... raat kay 3 bajay bi biwi ko gar bahir kar doon aur agar bachoon ko leh janay ka israr ho toh un ko bi saath behij doon. Mein kabi bi bachoon ki waja say aurat ka jhoota nah banna gawara karoon aur nah aap ko mashwara doon ga. Mairay bachay mujjay bhot aziz mein. Meray beta 3 saal 6 maheenay ka heh ... subho uth-ta heh toh bister par a jata heh ... agar moonh kambal mein ho toh kambal utaar kar bosa deta heh ... i love you daddy ... daddy did you missed me ... let me hug you daddy ... bhot meethi adat aur bhot kush adat wala heh ... kabi mein gussa hoon toh ... haath ko bosa deta heh ... are you angry daddy ... do you love me daddy ... aur meray sar par haath pherta heh aur kehta heh ... daddy don't be angry, ok ... uska mairay saath piyar aur maira us kay saath ... magr phir bi aik hadd mutayyin ki heh ... Husband wife mein wesay bhot jagra hota heh ... aur yeh aik fitrati baat heh ... doh banday hamesha raazi nahin reh saktay khaas kar joh aik gar mein rahen ... aur husband wife aik dosray ko bardasht kartay hen ... aur karna bi chahyeh ... aur woh aisi shadiyon mein hota heh jahan par biwi ko husband say aur husband ko biwi say piyar/lagaho ho ... respect ho ... biwi ko husband ki aur husband ko biwi ki ... phir shadi kamyab hoti heh ... joh aap bata rahay hen us say pata lagta heh keh is ka solution wohi heh joh bataya heh keun kay aap ki biwi mein thori bi respect nahin aap wasteh ... Meri bari behan ko khawand say kuch gila shikwa thah toh us nay khawand kay bahiyoon ... behnoon ... bahbiyoon ko jama keeya aur mujjay bi ... takay meri behan sab kay samnay apnay khawand kay mutaliq batahay ... mein nay sab ko mukhatib keeya aur poocha kia aap husband wife mein kabi kohi narazgi huwi ... aur zahir baat heh husband wife mein hoti heh ... sab nay kaha han ... phir poocha kabi aap nay gar mein muhallay kay bandoon ko jama keeya ... takeh husband wife ki burahi karay ya wife husband ki burahi karay aur woh aap ko faisla sunahen kay kis say ziyadti huwi ... sab nay kaha nahin ... phir behan ko mukhatib kar kay kaha kay tum bataho kay tum nay mujjay aur in logoon ko keun jama keeya ... kia tumari aur tumaray husband ki is mein izzat heh ... behan ko toh samp soong gaya ... magr husband kay khnay par woh bol pari us nay kaha kay hamaray akhrijaat par anh banh huwi heh ... kehnay lagi akhrijat pooray nahin hotay aur yeh fazool kharchi karta heh ... mein nay poocha kia tumara is saath guzara nahin ... kehnay lagi nahin ... mein nay kaha jab guzara nahin toh phir is ka ilaaj talaq heh kharcha poora ho nah ho jab guzara nahin toh toh talaq heh ... donoon kay pass panch mint hen soch lo kia karna heh ... panch mint baad ... mein nay behnoi ko mukhatib keeya kia tum gar kay akhrajat nahin pooray kar saktay ... kehnay laga kar sakta hoon ... behan say poocha tumara is kay saath guzara heh ya nahin kehnay lagi ... guzara heh toh reh rahi hoon ... behnoi ko kaha tumara kaam gar kay akhrajat pooray karna heh ... behan tumara kaam gar chalana ... behan ko kaha tumara haq yeh heh kay tumara husband tumaray tamam shar'i huqooq puray karay aur biwi ka bi yahi heh ... magr is kay saath husband wife aur wife husband ki izzat kay muhafiz hen ... aur agar meri behan ainda is tera logh jama karay toh phir is ko talaq deh dena ... aur mein uth kar chala aya ... mein abhi 42 saal ka hoon yeh mamla taqriban 10 saal purana heh ... aaj taq nah khawand ki taraf say complain aahi heh kay tumari behan nay yeh kar deeya ... aur nah behan ki taraf say kohi complain aahi heh kay husband nay yeh kar deeya ... donoon ko samaj lag gahi kay ... YEH TALAQ WALI SARKAR rehmatullah alay ... fori tor par talaq karwa deh ga ... woh cigret peeta thah us nay cigret chor deeyeh ... aur haftay mein teen/char bahir dostoon kay saath hotaloon resturantoon mein khana khata thah sab kuch chor deeya ... achi koshis aur niyat ka nateeja yeh nikla kay abhi woh hateh mein 530 pound aik hafteh mein kamata heh ... achi job milli cigret jaisi shaytaniat say jaan chooti .... health behtr huwi ... Yeh batanay ka maqsid yeh heh kay mein nay yeh aap ko talaq ka mashwara nahin deeya ... mein Talaq wali sarkar hoon ... achi aurat talaq kay naam say kamp jati heh ... aur bewaqoof ko kohi fikr nahin ... dosra bataneh ki yeh waja heh kay insaaf kay saath chalen ... tesri waja yeh keh agr aap ki biwi achi aur agar us mein khoobi hoti toh woh kabi bi aap ko talaq ka nah kehti aur nah istera family ko involve karti ... chalen us nay kar leeya ... agar us kay gar walay aqalmnd hotay toh ulta us ki khabr letay ... takay us kay hosleh past hotay aur aap ko position aur marriage ki position strong hoti ... magr beti ki muhabbat mein aur aap ko dabbanay kay jazbay mein unoon nay poori koshish kee huwi heh kay un ki beti ko talaq ka gold medal millay ... aap ki biwi agar achi hoti toh yeh baat gar say bahir nah nikalti ... nikli toh father mother samjatay ... balkay unoon nay toh talaq doh ... ya khula loon ka wird sikha deeya agay say ... Lamba kissa mukhtasir ... do talaq bad agar woh nah seedhi ho ... aur us kay gar walay seedhay nah hoon ... toh phir chup kar kay talaq deh denh ... Talaq nay hona hee hona heh ... farq sirf itna heh ... woh aap ko gar say bahir nikaal deh kar khula leh gi ... jis mein aap ko mazeed zillat hogi ... aur phir talaq bi ... dosra tariqa yeh heh kay aap apni izzat ko mafooz keren aur us kay khula lenay say pehlay hi talaq ki step shoroon kar denh ... kam say kam aap ki nafs ko toh yeh taskeen toh hoga kay mein nay ussay talaq deeh ... itni zillat bad talaq ka gold medal jab ussay millay ga toh kam say kam yeh sakoon toh hoga kay aap nay talaq di. Rahi bachoon ki baat toh ... unoon nay aap kay bachay aap say chura lenay hen ... aap talaq denh ya woh khula leh ... donoon sooratoon mein bachay aap say jahen gay ... aur talaq bi hogi ... sirf woh mentally prepare ho rahi heh ... jab woh mentally prepar howi toh us nay khula leh leni heh ... misaal lenh ... jistera jagray/larahi say pehlay gali galoch shor sharaba hota heh aur jab bardasht say bhir ho jahay toh larahi hoti heh ... is'see tera aap ki biwi talaq say pehlay shor sharaba kar rahi heh ... jab aap ka wujud aur shakal us ki bardasht say bahir huwi toh us nay talaq/khula leni heh. Abhi woh first stage par heh ... ainda saal do teen mein next step ahay gi. Is wasteh aap talaq denh ya nah us nay leni heh ... aur behtr yahi heh kay aap teen char saal keun barbad keren gay ... abhi meray mashwaray par amal keren joh pehlay deeya thah ... agar nah seedhi huwi toh kam say kam bey-fazol aurat mein waqt pesa invest karnay say bach jhen gay aur achi biwi millay gi. Niyat achi aur koshish achi aur larki achi talash keren ... Moti bad-shakal musalman aur ba-adab aurat patli khoobsurat bad-akal kafir ziyada aur musalman kam aurat say behtr heh. Biwi mein miyaar musalman aur kirdar ka doonden. Mard aur aurat woh achay joh zuban say musalman, amal mein musalman, lebas mein musalman, aur rehan sehan mein bi musalman aur tahzeeb mein bi musalman. Woh mard aurat joh sirf zuban say muslam aur lesbas mein bi kafir, tazeeb mein bi kafir, amal mein bi kafir ... un say bachen.

Bachoon ka mamla thora complex heh ... asaan nahin heh ... meray bi do bachay hen ... bachoon say muhabbat aik aisi fitrati feeling heh joh control nahin hoti agar sabr shukr aur izzat say guzara hota heh toh theek warna ... aap ko balance karna heh ... bachay ya izzat ki zindgi ...

Jahil logh ihtiraaz kartay hen kay Ala Hazrat nay ra'i e ummah farmaya ... ra'i e ummat tazeem wala heh aur ra'ina i.e. hamara charwaha gustakhi kay mana wala heh. Jistera Allah kay Nabi sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam ko kehna ... hamaray jaisay bashir ... meray jesay bashr ... gustakhi aur be-adabi wala mana deta heh ... magr Ambiyah jaisay bashr ... Hazrat Ibrahim alayhis salam jaisay bashr ... Yahoodi ... hamara charwaha ... kehtay thay. Ummat ka ra'i ka mana ummat ka nighayban ka heh ... Ummat ka ra'i hona kohi gustakhi nahin ... jab bakriyoon ka ra'i hona mein Ambiyah ki towheen nahin toh phir Ummatoon kay ra'i honaymein kesay towheen huwi: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/37/3 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/70/82 https://sunnah.com/adab/30/40 https://sunnah.com/muslim/36/223

Biwi ko ilada kar denh. Agar phir bi problem ho ... yehni talaq khula waghayra ki damkiyan ... toh us ka joh solution joh aap ki biwi nay apnay maanh baap kay saath mil kar banaya heh ... yehni talaq khula ... us ko poora kar denh ... yehni Talaq deh denh. Hadith mein aya heh kay Hazrat Ibrahim (alayhis salam) nay Hazrat Ismail (alayhis salam) ko hukum deeya thah kay apni biwi ko talaq deh doh keun kay woh apnay haal par raazi nahin thee aur na-khushi ka izhar keeya thah ... is kee waja say talaq ka hukum deh deeya. Joh aurat moonh ziyada damagh aur haath kam chalahay us ko Talaq deh kar farigh kar dena chahyeh. Bachoon ki khatir biwi ki jhooti banna pata nahin aap kesay gawara kar rahay hen. Allah ka naam leh kar aur yeh tawaqoh rakh kar kay Allah achi aur naik biwi say nikkah karwahay ga ... pehli Talaq muhallay kay bandoon ko bula kar likh kar kissi chachay, baray chota, ammi, abu, taya, mamoon ki aaik nah suneh ... us kay brothers sisters baap maan sab ko bula kar ... jama keren ... aur araam say beth kar likhen ... mein Khansullah ... hosh o hawas mein ... apni biwi ko sirf aik talaq deta hoon ... aur baghayr kuch kahay sab ko parh kar sunah denh ... aur jah kar biwi haath mein denh ... saath mubarak ho ... baqi doh aynda ayyam e pakeezi mein aik aik kar kay doonh ga ... aur phir aram say bazaar mein jahen ... enjoy keren ... aap ki biwi kay saray ball aur aap kay susr waghayra kay saray ball ... aik ki talaq say nikal jahen gay ... agar nah niklay... aur seedhi nah huwi toh aglay maheenay ... masjid kay loud speaker par jahen aur dosri talaq ka ilaan kar denh ... agar phir bi seedhi nah ho toh ... Allah ka naam leh kar tesri aur aakhri talaq tesray 3 maheenay mein likh denh ... raazi nama sirf in sooratoon mein keren ... biwi kay maanh baap aap ko 5 lakh rupay denh gay ... mein dosri shaadi karoon ga ... gar ka sara kaam kaaj biwi karay gi aur ammi kuch bi nahin karay gi ... aur jab taq mein gar mein jag raha hoon tab taq biwi meri jhootiyan sar par utha kar bethay gi. Yehni aisi sharait joh woh maneh hee nah aur aap tesri aur aakhiri talaq likh kar hawalay kar denh. Ya seedhi ho jahay gi ya phir aap is ko talaq deh kar aur biwi gar leh ahen gay.

Salam alaykum. Behtr hota aap tabeer nah poochtay. Do tabeer hen is khawab ki ... awal aap buray kamoon mein paray hen misaal ya phir gumrah bandoon say dosti heh. . Dohim aap ki behan gumrah/bad mazhab theen.

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat nay yeh nahin likha kay iradatan qatal keeya jahay ... keun jhoot boltay ho ... unoon nay likha kay dari munday ko qatal ki wa'eed ...yehni threat ... heh. Abh is ka jawab dari munda fasiq e mul'an eh shariat mein ... aur fasiqoon ko quran mein qatal ki waeed deeh gahi thee ... woh auratoon ko tang kartay thay ... auratoon ko tang karna ... clean shave rehna ... kafiroon wastwh mukhbari karna ... mard auratoon ko afwahen pehla kar badnam karna ... sab fasiqoon kay kaam hen aur fasiqoon ko qatal ki waeed quran. Is Kafir ki kissi baat ka ihtibar nah keren ... balkay agar scan deh toh kutub joh aap kay pass hoon un ko check kar lenh ... yeh Islam ki mukhalfat mein aur thanvi gangohi nanotavi ambethvi dehalvi madaani gakharvi waghayra kay muhabbat mein aisa anda heh kay agar woh kitaboon mein kuch b likh dean ya tasleem kr lay ga... yeh woh kafir heh jis nay islam kay deeyeh ko dil say aisa gul keeyeh heh kay quran ka noor bi is ko munawwar nahin kar sakta ... is ko apnay haal par xhor denh ... wesay apna waqt zayan nah keren ... kissi kuttay par ja kar mehnat keren us kay insaan bannay kay chances is kay musalman honay say ziyada hen.

Tum ko meray khawab par ihtiraz heh jis mein ... mein aap ki behan kay saath ۔...... ...... ..... ..... ....... .... ..... .... .... ... ... ABH TUM DAKAY CHUPAY ILFAAZ MEIN GALI DENAY LAGAY TO SAMJA JAHAY GA KAY AAP KI BEHAN KA KOHI AISA HEE HAQIQAT MEIN MASLA HEH ... AUR MERAY KHAWAB SAY TUM KO YAAD AYA KAY WOH KESI HEH.

Introduction: In Islam acts of worship are sanctioned by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and performing any act instructed by Him and demonstrated by His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). As such any act of worship without explicit sanction or Ijtihadi evidence is invalid and rejected. This raises an interesting question about acts of worship performed by polytheists in general, Satanists, Hindus, and those performed by followers of modern polytheistic religious innovations. Question arises are their innovated acts of worship actually worship in terms of Islam? To answer this question we need to interpret their actions in context of all inclusive definition of worship. There is another component to this question from perspective of innovation and it has been responded to, here. Fundamental And Ritual-Acts Definition Of Worship: (i) Fundamental: To invoke an Ilah with belief and intention of worship is worship. (ii) Ritual Acts: To perform any ritual-act with belief and intention of worshiping an Ilah is an act of worship. Interpreting Ritual-Acts In Light Of Definitions Of Worship: General principle is that any/every action be it dancing, breaking a coconut, performing Tawaf of candle, offering food, crawling, prostrating, bowing, fasting, singing praises, invoking for help, smacking an idol with dirty shoe, draging idol in streets … all would amount to worship if these are performed with belief and intention of worship. These acts would be worship with or without feeling of obedience, submissiveness, humility, love, respect, or fear of an Ilah/idol. Essential requirement is affirming belief of Ilahiyyah/Ma’budiyyah for a creation, belief, desire, and intention of worship. And then any act deemed appropriate by disbelievers as an act of worship would be worship even if we as Muslims deem it inapropriate. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: A Somali Sunni brother confused by Wahhabis contacted me via E-Mail requesting help. He provided link of a forum, here, where an article of mine, here, was employed to justify Sunni position. He wanted to understand controversy if Najd is in Iraq, or in Arabia, and if the Ahadith of Qarn ash’Shaytaan (i.e. group of Satan, commonly translated to mean, horn of Satan) apply upon residents of Arabia, or Iraq. I decided to visit the forum and decided to engage the participants in discussion hoping that conflict would be resolved. My arrival was too late because most participants of discussions had either left forum or had given upon on discussion. All was not lost because I had opportunity to respond to some of key points. This article is improved version of content published on NairaLand forum. It helped our Sunni brother and allowed him to greatly develop his understanding on subject with aid of related articles. And hope is others too would find this article a help and as a weapon against Khariji branch of Wahhabism. NairaLand Wahhabi Arguments Already Comprehensively Refuted: Wahhabi brother named as Abdullah wrote article in effort to prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed Najd in Hadith to mean Iraq. Why I am telling you this? All content which Wahhabis have quoted in support of their position in this thread, here, was also quoted by brother Abdullah in his article published at System_Of_Life, here. Brother Abdullah went beyond the call of duty to establish Wahhabi position. As such everything discussed at NairaLand has been indirectly responded to in my response to brother Abdullah’s article, here, here, and here. Therefore I will not be comprehensively responding to everything mentioned on this forum (i.e. NairaLand forum). Anyone interested in reading comprehensive refutation of Wahhabi arguments should read the refutations written in response to brother Abdullah. Key Points Of Discussion And Questions Answers To Which Can Resolve Dispute: Most of discussion has revolved around following points of contention: i) Khawarij emerged from Iraq or Najd? ii) Ahadith stating Khawarij emerged from Iraq are authentic or inauthentic? iii) Was Iraq known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions by name of Iraq? iv) Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employ Najd in lingusitic usage or as a name of region? v) If Iraq is in East of Madinah or not? vi) Does the linguistic meaning of Najd fits upon country of Iraq, or upon region of Iraq from where Khawarij emerged? These questions are important and correct answer to these will resolve the dispute. Equally important are following questions and honest and answers supported with text of Hadith will help to fully understand and resolve this controversy: vii) Was Iraq known as Najd during the life time of Prophet? viii) Is there a region/village/city called Najd in Iraq? ix) When Prophet pointed toward the house of Aisha to indicate direction from which group/horn of Satan would appear; did he point toward Iraq, or toward modern Saudi capital of Riyadh? x) Hadith says Prophet [in order to point direction Khawarij/group aka horn of Satan would emerge] pointed toward the direction of sunrise ... does the sun rise from direction of Iraq or from direction of Saudi capital Riyadh? xi) Leaders of Khawarij which appeared in Iraq where they Iraqis or did they live in Arabia and were part of Banu Tamim? Please note answer to all these will be provided in this article. Method Of Resolving Conflict And Ahadith Of Iraq Are Authentic: Shortest route to resolving this conflict is via last three points, i.e. viii, ix, and x. These are fundamentals and whatever is established with aid of authentic evidence will by default provide answers to all other questions except i, ii, and iii. To answer the first point. It is a fact that over-whelming members of Khawarij and their leadership such as of Khawarij like Dhul Khawaisirah at-Tamimi, Abdullah Ibn Wahb al-Rasibi were from tribe of Banu Tamim. This has been established in following article, here. It is also a undeniable fact that Banu Tamim as a tribe, Kharijis, and their leadership all were residents of central Arabian province of Najd. Following maps depict location of Banu Tamim, here, and region of Najd, here. Therefore it should be clear all that Khawarij as a sect emerged from central Saudi Arabia but as a rebel group rebelling against rightly guided Caliph distinguished itself from Jammah in Iraq. So in conclusion Khawarij emerged from Najd and Iraq. One set of Hadiths points to tribal land of Khawarij and other Ahadith point to country where they would become known as a distinct sect. By now observant readers would have deduced answers to contention ii, iii; Ahadith of Iraq and Najd both are authentic. It should be known to all members especially Sunnis; Iraq was known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), to his companions with name Iraq, here, here, here, here, and here. Note usage of word Iraq in content of Hadith so Sunnis please refrain from making this blunder again. With such amaturish errors you’re underminding position of Ahlus Sunnah and unnesscerily empowering arguments of enemies of religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Where Is Najd: In Country Of Iraq Or In Central Arabia: Earlier a map depicting Najd was shared and not all would have accepted it. I have maxim; one who is sincere needs evidence to believe and insincere person needs excuses; and there is no shortage of excuses. A genuine demand would be to ask for evidence of Quran and Sunnah which corresponds with what the map has depicted. Everything else is fluff and excuses to disbeleive in truth by an insincere individual. So lets ask the right question: Where is Najd? Is it in Arabia or in country of Iraq? Answer to these questions is not hard if all Ahadith about Najd are taken into account. Using individual Hadith and arguing over it makes it impossible to resolve the dispute so let’s not do this. We should take into account all available Ahadith and this will help us to precisely pin point direction and location of Najd. Note; you must look at all evidence as a whole. There can be disagreement over interpretation of single Hadith related to this topic but when it is looked in light of all other then wrong interpretation of it will become evident. Najd Is In Arabia – Application Of Linguistic Najd On Iraq: Wahhabis commonly argue Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not employ Najd as a name of region but in linguistic sense of raise/elevated/mountanous land. And then dishonestly apply linguistic meaning of Najd upon Iraq. Application of linguistic meaning of Najd upon Iraq is nothing like applying description of black on white. Iraq linguistically denotes meaning of low. Allamah Yaqut Hamvi (rahimullah) in his Mo’jam al-Buldan while defining meaning of Iraq states lowest part of Mashk (i.e. waterskin) from where water is drawn corresponds with meaning of Iraq. In other words in his understanding Iraq is in meaning of region which drains water into see. He also stated Iraq is called Iraq because comparatively it is flatter and lower then Najd. And this date perfectly corresponds with modern research. Please see following article to see maps, ground elevation of Iraq and Najd, here. Najd Is In Araba – East, Direction Of Sunrise, And Group Of Satan: There are Ahadith which state group of Satan aka Qarn ash-Shaytan will emerge from direction of East and direction of sunrise: “Verily, afflictions (will start) from here," pointing towards the east, "whence the side of the group of Satan comes out." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H714] "Afflictions are there! Afflictions are there, from the side where group of Satan will come out." Or said: "... the group [from direction] of sun (rise) ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H212] Using modern sciencetific research and tools it can now be established that one living in Madinah will not see sunrising from Iraq and most definitely not see sun rising from direction of Baghdad, Kufa, Nahrawan, and Harura. Note these were regions of Iraq from where Khawarij either assembled or fought, here. Resident of Madinah will see sunrising in lands of modern and ancient Arabia. Najd Is In Araba – Land Of Sunrise And Two Group Of Satan: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explicitly stated sunrises between the two groups of Satan. Two groups of Satan are tribes of Rabia and Mudhar: “Ibn Umar reported Allah's Messenger as saying: Do not intend to observe prayer at the time of the rising of the sun nor at its setting for it rises between the groups of Satan.” [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1807] "True belief is Yemenite yonder but sternness and mercilessness are the qualities of those who are busy with their camels and pay no attention to the Religion. [It is a place] where the two sides of the group of Satan will appear. Such are tribe of Rabia and Mudar." [Ref: Bukhari, Bo54, H521] And guess where were these two groups of Satan are located at? If you said Arabia then you're smart. In following artilce you will see tribal lands of Banu Rabia and Mudhar depicted on map, here. There was tiny confusion which was resolved in the following article, here. This establishes sunrising boundary according to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is land of Banu Rabia and Banu Mudhar. And this perfectly corresponds with Hadith which states group of Satan will emerge from direction of sunrise. This substantiates claims that one living in Madinah will not see sunrising from country of Iraq. Najd Is In Araba – Pointed At House Of Aisha To Point Group Of Satan: And IRREFUTABLE, and CONCLUSIVE, and DESICIVE evidence is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointed toward the direction of house of Aysha (radiallah ta'ala anha) to point the direction from which group of Satan would emerge: “Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house, he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from the side, where Satan's head will come out." [Ref: Bukhari, B53, H336] This Hadith is employed in following article to prove with unquestionable certaintity; he pointed direction of Saudi capital Riyadh while telling where the group of Satan would emerge from, here. Finally whe have many Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) mentioned name Najd from where group/horn of Satan would appear: “Narrated Ibn 'Umar: (The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said: "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said: "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again: "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said: "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the group of Satan." [Ref: Bukhari, B17, H147] Please access historical Najd depicted on following maps, here. Prophet Precisely Indicated Appearance Of Wahhabism: All this evidence, and maps, clearly and emphaticly come togather to prove Najd is in Arabia and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) precisely pointed toward Saudi capital Riyadh. And Dirriyah and Uyaynah are stones throw away from capital. Two villages are connected with origin of Wahhabism because Uyaynah is birth place of founder of Wahhabism, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and Dirriyah became mission centre for Wahhabism. After reading all the material if there is still a individual who believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) said Najd and he meant Iraq, or Najd is in Iraq then you my Wahhabi brother have defeated me. I have no answer to your lack of education. You have beaten me and my tiny learning. It is evident Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointed toward Dirriyah/Uyaynah. By pointing toward them he indicated none other then emergence of Wahhabism. From this demonstration it is clear that Ahadith of Iraq cannot legitimately be interpreted to mean Iraq is Najd. Nor Ahadith which state Khawarij will emerge from Najd should be interpreted to mean Najd is Iraq. Clearly both regions are not the same. And this proves that there are two sets of Ahadith, one set applies to Arabian province of Najd and other applies to country of Iraq. Therefore both sets should be interpreted in light of their own Ahadith. Two Major Groups Of Satan To Emerge - First One Appeared In Iraq: Discerning readers would note I have indirectly established appearance of two groups of Satan. One appeared from Iraq and rebelled against rightly guided Caliph Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Jammah of companions. And the second appeared in 17th century and rebelled against Uthmanic Caliphate and Jammah of Muslims but I have offered no evidence to support my point of view. To lift this burden of evidence from my shoulders. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) foretold there will be two [main] groups/horn of Satan from Banu Rabia and Banu Mudhar: “And harshness and callousness of the hearts is found amongst the rude owners of the camels, who drive them behind their tails (to the direction), where emerge the two groups of Satan, they are [from] the tribes of Rabi'a and Mudar.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H83] Following Hadith is proof that Khawarij are to appear from Iraq: “Narrated Yusair bin Amr: I asked Sahl bin Hunaif, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq. "There will appear in it some people who will recite the Qur'an 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] This first group of Khawarij was none other then those who rebelled against Caliph Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Banu Mudhar split into Banu Tamim. The first one was group of Khawarij lead by Abdullah, aka Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi, aka Hurkus Ibn Zuhayr, and Abdullah Ibn Wahb al-Rasibi. The first Khawarij marched to Syria with army of Ali from Arabian province of Najd. After incident of arbitration returned to Iraq and fought in a rebellious war against Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu). A comprehensive explanation of this Hadith with aid of other authentic Ahadith is given in following article, here. Two Major Groups Of Satan To Emerge – Second Emerged From Najd: The second main group emerged from Najd and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) foretold of this here: “Narrated Ibn 'Umar: (The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said: "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said: "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again: "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said: "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the group of Satan." [Ref: Bukhari, B17, H147] Apart from being certain that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with very accurately pointed toward land from where group of Satan i.e. Wahhabism was to emerge; is there anything else which connects Wahhabism to Kharijism? This would be a logical and perfect question. Are there signs/traits which connects Wahhabism to Kharijism? Of course there are and lets begin. Wahhabism Is Another Major Offshoot Of Kharijism: Rebellion is sign of Khawarij. Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabis rebelled against authority/rule of Khilafat. And his Wahhabi minions have continued to start rebellions and lead civil wars against Muslim states to this day; TTP (Pakistan), ISIS, Al-Qaidah, Boko Haram (Algeria), Al-Shabab (Somalia), Jammat Abu Sayyaf (Malaysia), Islamic Salvation Front (Mali), Islamic Armed Group (Mali) … And Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabis rebelled against Jammah of Muslims. Another trait of Khawarij is that they declare Muslims as Kafir/Mushrik due to actions of major sins committed by ignorant Muslims. Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabis accused Muslims of committing major Shirk and on account of it justified killing them, looting their property, enslaving believing women, and forced them into sexual actions. And his followers even to this day are engaged in same. Khawarij charged the Muslims of Kufr/Shirk for absolutely no justified reason whatsoever. For things which are not even sin/Kufr/Shirk in Shari'ah. Khawarij declared Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) Mushrik/Kafir for choosing Abu Musa al-Ashari (radiallah ta'ala anhu) as an arbitrator to judge between him and Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu). They quoted verse, judgment is only for Allah, and said Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) and his followers have committed Shirk because accepted creation as Judge. On this ground we find: Shaykh al-Najd and his rabid Wahhabis have in principle consider all those who practice Istighathah and believe in its legitimacy as Mushrikeen/Kafireen. Khawarij kill Muslims with imputiny and looted property and enslaved women of believers. Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabis committed massacre after massacre of Muslims professing la-ilaha il-Allah. They took the wives, mothers, sisters, daughters of Muslims as slaves, and fornicated/raped them believing they are women of Mushrikeen/Kafireen. And this is something expressedly prohibited by Prophet: “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: (i) To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits. (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his deed. Jihad continues from the day I was sent as Prophet to ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] Wahhabis and their Shaykh al-Najd violated all three. Sign of Khawarij is that they apply Quranic verses revealed for polytheists and their idol-gods upon believers as following Hadith establishes: “Ibn Umar considered the Khawarij and the heretics as the worst beings in creation, and he said: They went to verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the Believers.” [Bukhari; Chapter Khawarjites. Ibn Hajr al Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari: That its sanad is sahih.] Shaykh al-Najd, his Wahhabis of past, present all are guilty of this. Shaykh al-Najd in his books, just take Kitab al-Tawheed as an example, quoted all verses revealed for Mushrikeen/Kafireen to lay the foundation of his accusation that Muslims are in fact guilty of Shirk. He didn’t stop just there but verses which were revealed about Kafirs not believing in ressurection after death and judgment day; he applied them upon Muslims of Makkah and accused them of disbelieving in life after death and judgment day. Another attribute of Khawarij is that they will excessively shave their heads – like BNP racist skin heads: “Sahl bin Hunaif reported Allah's Apostle as saying: There would arise from the east a people with shaven heads.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2338] Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabis originally were all skin-heads. And books of scholars recording their description in their own time recorded this fact but after scholars applied relevent Ahadith upon Wahhabis to warn Muslims they gradually left this practice. It should not be difficult to determine on basis of these facts that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, aka Shaykh al-Najd, and his followers were second group of Satan, aka Khawarij. In his own time scholars and even his own brother told him that you're the horn/group of Satan that was prophecised to appear from Najd. Conclusion: Ahadith record a group of Satan is to appear from Najd and another from Iraq. Ahadith about these two regions are authentic. Details precisely establish Najd is in Arabian Peninsula and is region surrounding Saudi capital Riyadh. To distort this Hadith and apply it upon country of Iraq would be distortion of Hadith. Linguistic meaning of Najd and Iraq are completely opposite and ground reality of Iraq is such that linguistic meaning of Najd cannot be applied to it. Traditional understanding and universally accepted fact is that Najd was a province in central Arabia. Central Arabia’s unique trait in comparision to Iraq is that it is vastly mountanous terrain thus it is deserving linguistic application of Najd. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold appearance of two groups of Satan. First one appeared in Iraq during the Khilafat of Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and the second one appeared in middle of 17th century in Najd. And this second group was/is none other then Wahhabism. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Understanding Requirements Of Ibadadh In Islam: And Determining Why Evil Innovations Are Accepted As Valid Evidence Of Shirk And Kufr. Introduction: During a debate/discussion with a Pakistani Ghayr-Muqallid Wahhabi on topic of Talaq e Thalathah (i.e. three divorces) and generally about subject of innovation/Biddah. He jibed Barelwis have introduced so many innovations as acts of worship that another innovation of three divorces issued in an instant ending marriage would not harm your reputation anymore. This discussion can be read, here. when I pointed out to him that your knowledge of definition of Biddah, your understand what Ibadah is defective. And you most certainly don’t know what we believe thus you’re in no position to make any judgment about Biddah, Ibadah, and our belief. He responded by saying test me and tested I him certainly. He failed to meet the challenge and instead got quite angry/abusive. He charged me with instilling doubts in his faith. He called me names i.e. agent of Iblees … went far as issuing edict of Kufr. In response to his evil best I could do was to to educate him, what Ibadah is in Islam, what are requirements for action to be of worship, here, here. Principally Innovated Acts Of Worship Are Rejected: For a Muslim every act of worship he performs must be sanctioned and instructed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran or by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), transmitted and recorded in books of Ahadith. If a Muslim innovates an act of worship which does not agree with principles of Deen and performs innovated act of worship to gain pleasure of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then his innovative practice will be only be rejected. He will gain no reward but instead will be punished for such [reprhensible] innovation. Technically the [reprehensible] innovation will be considered act of worship but will be termed as a [reprehensible] innovation and rejected due to lack of authority from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). In this context it is evident their riatual-acts do not have sanction from of Islam. Thus how can these people be guilty of worshiping false gods when their methods of worship and Ilah/gods are their innovations? Readers should note that this question can only be correctly answered if authorative Ibadah and Biddah definitions are known. The Core Which Defines Islamic And Non-Islamic Ritual Acts As Worship: Islamic and non-Islamic ritual-acts are defined as acts of worship based on three factors; creed, action and intention. If one believes a certain ritual-act is act is of worship and believes one to whom act is as an Ilah/Ma’bud; then with intention of worship directs ritual-act toward that Ilah/Ma’bud then act will be judged as worship. Scenario To Elaborate The Core Principles Of Worship: Suppose Amr invokes Krishna with love, and praises Krishna, or invokes and seeks need from Krishna believing Krishna is an ilah then major Shirk has occurred due to creed and action. Shirk in creed because Amr has taken Krishna to be an Ilah and in action because Amr has praised and sought need from Krishna believing him to be an ilah. Take for example innovated act of worship; kissing candle twice, third time lighting it and circumbulating it around the mini idol/ilah seven times and then finally putting the candle out by dashing it on the feet of mini idol/ilah. This practice is not Islamicly sanctioned as an act of worship but instead it is [reprehensible] innovation. If polytheist performed it with intention of worship and believed that idol/ilah then major Shirk has occurred in belief and in practice. The innovated ritual-acts of worship practiced by polytheists are acts of worship regardless of rituals involved. Ahadith Of Rejected Evil Innovations: Ahadith record every innovation is misguidance and takes to hell-fire, here. ‘Every’ is not absolutely inclusive of ‘all innovations’ because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) reported to have said, a matter and a action not from Islam is rejected, here, here. This proves Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made Takhsees and informed us to reject every innovation which contradicts with teaching of religion of Islam. Bukhari, Muslim, numbering of Surahs and verses, additions of diacritical markings to faciliate recitation of Quran for non-Arabs even though are innovations but they are not contradicting Islamic teaching but rather mean of promoting and faciliating Islam therefore are not part of rejected innovations which are misguidance and take to hell-fire. Innovated Good Sunnahs Are Made Part Of Islam: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said whoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam for him and those who follow the newly introduced Sunnah into Islam will equally be rewarded, here. This Hadith is proof that a good Sunnah (i.e. innovation) introduced by any Muslim is part of Islam. Note innovation is not part of Islam and if a good Sunnah not already part of Islam is made part of Islam and there is reward for initiator and actor: Then natural meaning of Hadith is initiator of good innovation in Islam and actors will get equal reward. Way In Which Evil Innovation Is Rejected And Accepted: i) Every good innovative Sunnah when it is introduced by default becomes part of Ijtihadi-Islam [and is not part of revealed Islam] but an evil innovation; i.e. evil Sunnah, rejected matter, a rejected action; is to be rejected and not made part of Ijtihadi-Islam. And rejected in meaning that it is not acted on because it is misguidance which takes to hell-fire. Ahadith of rejected matter/action also means that on day of judgment Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not accept innovative action and will not reward it. Evil innovation is rejected in these meanings only. ii) But evil innovation, be it in belief or action, of Kufr or Shirk, is accepted and valid proof for Kufr/Shirk. Rejection of evil innovation does not include rejection where innovation is completely rejected and is not deemed as proof of someons belief/action. Such complete rejection would/does mean Mushrikeen of world of past/present cannot be judged to be Mushrikeen. And this completely and utterly contravenes Quranic message and Islamic teachings. Answering The All Important Question In Light Of Established Facts: Islamicly ritual worship is defined by three fundamental cores; the creed and the actions and intentions. Muslims believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worthy of worship (i.e. Ilah); ritual-actions performed in accordance with teaching of Quran/Sunnah, and with intention of worship are therefore worship. Non-Islamic ritual-acts are also defined by three fundamental cores; creed, action and intentions. If Krishna is believed to be an Ilah and a ritual-act believed to be of worship is directed toward Krishna with intention of worship then ritual-act is worship. And to be precise worship of Krishna. This would be so even if method of worship has no approval of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Their ritual-actions are judged to be worship in accordance with their own belief, intention, and practice. Mushrikeen certainly have no permission from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to worship anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or to take anyone other then Him as an Ilah. Mushrikeen worshiping a creation and taking Ilahs beside/instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is innovation. Despite it being an innovation if a certain creation is believed to be an Ilah then it is rejected by Muslims and not deemed a part of Ijtihadi-Islam, nor acted, and will be rejected and not rewarded by Him. Yet it will be valid/accepted proof of Mushrik individual’s Shirk. Conclusion: Foundation of worship is affirmation of belief of Ilahiyyah for deity. And along with it are two essential components; intention to worship a deity and ritual-action to worship a deity with. If any one of three is missing then no act of worship has been performed. Action of worship is determined to be worship by judging the belief of person performing ritual-action. Even if ritual-action of worship has no sanction in Shari’ah due to it being an innovation it is of worship and valid/accepted proof of an individual’s Shirk/Kufr. Rejection of innovations only means not making it part of Ijtihadi-Islam, not acting on it, and innovation bearing no reward from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on day of judgment. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder of Wahhabi branch of Kharijism and his then/current group of Iblees (i.e. Qarn ash’Shaytaan) due to countless reasons accused Muslims of worshiping graves, trees, Jinn, Awliyah-Allah, fairies, and idols. This is despite the fact that none of the accused ever affirmed belief of Ilahiyyah for anyone other except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And none from them believed they are worshipping any mentioned nor had any intention of worshipping anyone of these. Wahhabi justification has been that they have offered acts of worship such as Sajdah (i.e. prostration), Tawaf (i.e. circumblation) and Dua (i.e. invocation) to these therefore guilty of worship. Object of this article would be to establish three core principles and demonstrate them to be correct/valid with examples. And then demonstrate, Sajdah, Tawaf, and Dua are not worship until performed with in context of these three core principles. Three Fundamental Principles Of Worship: The three essential principles of worship are belief in Ilahiyyah, intention of worship, and an action of worship. For Islamic ritual-acts of worship there are other requirements but three mentioned are absolutely must without any there can be no worship even if performed by Muslim, or non-Muslim. Implicit Affirmation Of Attributes Which Warrant Ilahiyyah And Worship: When there is no EXPLICIT affirmation of Ilahiyyah but an idol/person is beleived to posses anyone of the atributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) such as; its is beleived idol/person possesses Zaat and Sifaat which are Mustaqil bil'Zaat, Wajib ul-Wujud, Qadeem ... Or it is beleived that idol/person is ‘biological’ son, or is daughter of Allah; and then with intention of worship is loved, adored, respected, honoured, feared; and people stand, bow, prostrate, kneel; and supplicated in praise, beseech for their needs; in humility, submissiveness, respect, love, and fear then this would warrant affirmation of Ilahiyyah in belief and worship. Both of which are Shirk al-Akbar (i.e. major act of polytheism). Figurative use of son of God for any creation is Kufr but not Shirk. Explicit Affirmation Of In-equal Ilahiyyah And Intention, Action, And Worship: When belief of Ilahiyyah is affirmed and idol/person is not associated as an equal Ilah-partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), in one or more of His Sifaat, nor an equal in His Zaat; Ilah-partner is not praised, nor needs are sought from him, nor respected, loved, feared, honoured; nor bowed to, or prostrated to, or knelt infront of, or stood infront of as mark in respect; even then Shirk al-Akbar has occured due to affirmation of belief of Ilahiyyah. If such inferior Ilah-partner is praised, invoked for need, respected, loved, feared, honoured, bowed to, or prostrated to, or knelt infront of, or stood infront of as mark in respect then worship has occurred. Role Of Intention/Niyyah In Worship Is Absolutely Crucial: In Islam worship is only valid and accepted when the beleif about the Ilah ( i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worthy of Him. Fundamentally a believer must profess Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ilah/Ma’bud (i.e. deserving of worship) along belief in Tawheed. If such beleif is absent then actions alone can not be deemed worship. With the correct belief worshipper must have intention of worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) otherwise actions performed will be rejected by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in hereafter because no worship has taken place. If belief of Tawheed is correct but defect is in method of worship or in related but not Tawheed then worshipper is a Muwahid and Muslim. Zaid believes in Ilahiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), affirms all essential understanding of Tawheed, rejects all major and abstains from minor forms of Shirk, performs perfect Wudhu, chooses clean place, clothing worn by him is properly purified, method of Salah is fully in accordance with prophetic method of Salah but in his heart he has no intention of worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but does everything to fit into the crowd; in this scenario despite all no worship has been performed by Zaid. In this scenario Zaid had no intention of worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore his actions and everything else cannot be worship. Yet he remains a Muwahid and a Muslim because he attests to all requirements of Islam. Demonstrating Absence Of Ilahiyyah And Intention Equals No Worship: Kumar a new-age nut believes in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but not as an Ilah/Mabud but was a human being because Hadith of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) creating Adam (alayhis salam) in His/his image. He holds to misguided notion that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is an Insaan like rest of us but with superior technology and a huge spaceship. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created Adam (alayhis salam) in His/his own image on some planet and beamed Adam (alayhis salam) down on earth. Note he does not affirm belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah or anything else of Tawheed. You have to agree Kumar is a mad nut-job but he still performs Salah with intention of worship and meets all requirements of Salah except affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Question to you is; is Kumar worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He is not because his belief is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not worthy of worship for example he does not believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is an Ilah/Ma’bud. What if Kumar affirms all Islam except Ilahiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and performs action of worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but with no intention of worship; is he worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? No because beliefe of Ilahiyyah and intention and action are all essential components of worship. Establishing Principles Through Prophet Ya’qub And Angels Prostrating: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam). Tongue in cheek will translate this Quranic verse in accordance with Wahhabi understanding of how Ibadah/Shirk takes place; all the ‘Mushriks’ prostrated to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) but Iblees the Wahhabi type flag bearer of Tawheed refused to ‘worship’ Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) and upheld his belief in Tawheed. Incase of misunderstanding so I will set the record straight; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) commanded the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) angels prostrated as they were commanded to show their respect to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) and in obedience to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). If Sajdah by its very nature was worship then angels worshipped Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) but it is not the case. Principle is that for an/any action to be worship one performing the action must affirm belief of Ilahiyyah for whom the action is performed and intend to perform the action with intention of worship. Angels performed action of prostration without belief of Ilahiyyah for Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) and without ever intending to worship him therefore no worship took place. Same principle and understanding applies to action of Prophet Ya’qub (alayhis salam) when he prostrated to his son Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam). Conclusion: Three cores of worship are affirmation of Ilahiyyah, intention of worship, and action of worship. Without any of these three no worship has taken place. O Khariji minions of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab these principles are demonstratable truth and you cannot disbelieve in them. Why do you accuse Muslims of worshipping graves, trees, fairies, idols, righteous servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Jinn? And you know there is no affirmation of Ilahiyyah by Muslims, no intention to worship them, and in ninety-nine percent of times no action which resembles acts of worship. And even if there was an action which outwardly resembled act of worship even then such action alone is not worship until belief of Ilahiyyah, and intention of worship are part of it. Just as action of prostation performed by angels and Prophet Ya’qub (alayhis salam) without Ilahiyyah/Niyyah did not amount to worship. Any who makes Takfir of a Muslim is a Kafir and Takfir of Wahhabis returns to them. Wama Alayna Ilal Balaghul Mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razvi

Intorduction: There are many definitions of Islamic Ibadah (i.e. worship) circulated in books of scholars and over internet. And almost all fail to properly and comprehensively define what Islamic defintion of worship is. Most definitions were produced by classical Islamic scholarship and they stopped at linguistic meaning of Ibadah with addition of love/fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Amongst orthodox scholarly circles these definitions wouldn’t do any harm because traditional scholarship has always drawn missing Shar’i components from Quran/Sunnah to make them whole. Linguistic definitions in hands of Khawarij lead by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab of Najd has employed linguistic and incomplete defintions with imputiny to their advantage. And as result they have managed to misguide and lure many Muslims into Kufr of Khawarij. To combat this Kharijism Islamic/Shar’i defintion of worship is being offered as an alternative. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) make it way of guidance for many. Ameen. Supplication/Dua Related Definition Of Worship: (i) Fundamental: To invoke an Ilah is worship. (ii) Comprehensive: To show obedience, submissiveness, humility, and to hold in respect; to fear, or to love; to invoke in praise, or to invoke in time of difficulty, or ease; and to request great, or small from one believed as an Ilah; while believing Ilah is far, or near with belief and intention of worship amounts to worship. Definition Applicable To Islamic Ritual-Acts Of Worship: (iii) Ritual Acts Basic: To perform any ritual-act with belief and intention of worshiping an Ilah is an act of worship. (iv) Comprehensive Ritual Acts: Performing any ritual-act in obedience, submissiveness, humility, respect, love, fear to an Ilah; and to praise, to glorify qualities/attributes with belief and intention of worshiping an Ilah is an act of worship. Fundamental Worship And Other Components Of Worship: Fundamentally invoking a being believed as an Ilah is worship. This invocation is of praise, or request of need. Worship can consist of ritual acts or just verbal recitation. It can be worship with or without love, fear, humility, submission, and respect. If a Hindu, or Christian, or any other polytheist invokes an invented Ilah with or without love, fear, humility, submission, respect; despite this they will be guilty of Shirk due to belief of Ilahiyyah and guilty of Kufr due to engaging in a ritual-act with beliefe and intention of worship. A Muslim must worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with love, fear; with humility, submission, and respect. Worship performed without these feelings points to improper understanding of worship and heedlessness of worshipper. Advance And Basic Understanding Of Tawheed: There are two levels of knowing/understanding Tawheed. Basic level of Tawheed requires affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for ONLY Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And to affirm Tawheed of Ikhlas in brief and in detail; He was not begotten by mother/father, and He has no consort to beget son/daughter. And to affirm there is nothing resembles Him in His creation. Those due to lack of advance knowledge of Tawheed only hold to previously stated understanding of Tawheed; they are not only believers but worship offered with basic understanding/knowledge of Tawheed will be accepted. Generally educated Muslims are expected to affirm following advance understanding of Tawheed with basic Tawheed: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Wajib ul-Wujud (i.e. existance is must) and His Ad’am Wujud (i.e. non-existance) is impossible. He is Mustaqil bil’Zaat (i.e. self existent) and none has granted Him existance. Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Zaat (i.e. essence) and Sifaat (i.e. attributes) are Zaati (i.e. personal), Qulli (i.e. all-encampassing), Azli (i.e. eternal), bi’Ghayr Izni (i.e without permission of another), Muhaal al-Fana (i.e. anahilation impossible) … One who worships Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with comprehensive understanding of Tawheed has earned a greater merit in his worship and will earn greater reward. Worship Definition Pertaining To Islamic Ritual Acts Of Worship: (v) Islamic Ritual Concise: Being in position of Qiyam (i.e. standing), Ruku (i.e. bowing), Sujud (i.e. prostration), Tashahhud (i.e. kneeling position), or raising hands in a Dua, or during Tawaf of Kabah or Safa/Marwah; in obedience, submissivenes, humility, love, adoration, fear, honour, respect; while praising, or asking, begging and pleading Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with belief and intention of worship is worship. (vi) Islamic Ritual Comprehensive: With belief Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah/Rubb. He is without mother/father and brother/sister. Has no wife, or son, or daughter. He resembles nothing and anything does not resemble Him. He is the First, the Last, the Apparent, and the Hidden. His Zaat (i.e. essence), Sifaat (i.e. attributes) are Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Azali, Muhaal al-Fana, bi’Ghayr Izni, Qulli, Zaati, Haqiqi … Assuming position of Qiyam (i.e. standing), or Ruku (i.e. bowing), or Sujud (i.e. prostration), or sitting in position of Tashahhud (i.e. kneeling position), or raising hands in a Dua, or during Tawaf of Kabah and Safa/Marwah; in obedience, submissiveness, humility, love, adoration, fear, honour, respect; while praising, or asking, or begging and pleading Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with belief and intention of worship is worship. Missing Components Of Tawheed From Islamic Ritual Comprehensive Definition: There was much more of advance Tawheed then what has been stated. Detail of Tawheed not mentioned in I.R.Comprehensive but mentioned else where in this or another articles produced by me, or by other members of Ahlus Sunnah should be deemed correct. And can be inserted into text of definition I.R.Comprehensive right after the three dots. As matter of principle I.R.Comprehensive should be inclusive of all details of Tawheed and principles which explain Zaat and Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Salam Alaykum, Jab mein nay newly Deobandiat par thook kar chora thah toh aik bandeh nay yeh khawab mujjay bataya mein nay kaha yeh khawab heh khawab par control toh nahin phir jurm kia. Banday nay bataya kay aqalmand aur ba-sha-hoor banday apni betiyoon, behnoon, biwiyoon ka naam bi nahin letay ghayr mehramoon mein. Ta-kay un ki taraf kissi ka khayal bi nah jahay ta-kay kohi ulti sochay bi nah. Yeh banda aisa khawab Hadhrat Fatimah (radiallah ta'ala anha) kay baray mein kitab mein likh raha heh joh agar sacha khawab bi ho toh zikr karna bey-adabi heh. Kia agar Thanvi ko khawab ata kay is ki beti kay saath aik larka bister par leta heh aur Thanvi ki beti ko seenay say lagaya huwa heh toh kia yeh banda is khawab ko kitab mein publish karta? Ya aap (yehni mujjay Muhammed Ali ) ko aisa khawab ahay toh kia aap kitab mein publish keren gay? Mein baat ko samaj gaya ... toba astaghfar ki ... kaam say jab ghar aya 2 rakaat astaghfar kay nawafil paray ... toba kee ... aur kaan pakr kar moonh qibla ho kar das dafa sit&stand keenh ... Mughal bhai aisay pages idhar nah lagahen is ko bar bar parh kar dil dukhta heh. Yeh bey-iman Musalman ki ghayrat, haya, adab, tazeem say mehroom heh. Is ko Thanvi, Gangohi, Dehalvi, Chandpuri, Ambethvi waghayra say hi muhabbat heh aur un ki taraf-dari mein kuch bi keh aur kar sakta heh aur in kay har kufr aur bay-hayahi ko acha aur ayn Islam kahay ga. Aap is kay samnay yeh khawab hazaar dafa bayan keren is kabi bi is ko ghalat aur towheen Hadhrat Fatimah (radiallah ta'ala anha) nahin manay ga, aur nah tehra-hay ga, nah samjay ga, aur nah mahsoos karay ga. Waja is ki apnay aur para-hay wali heh. Joh is kay apnay hen aur jinneh yeh dil say apna manta heh un wasteh is kay dil parh meri batenh dard ka basit hen magr RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko aur un ki family ko sirf yeh zuban say apna manta heh dil mein sirf Thanvi jaisay Kafir gussay hen. Yeh misdaq heh ... tum Kafir ho chookay imaan lanay kay baad ... Is ki behan ko mein agar khawab mein seenay say lagahoon aur shafa pahoon. Ya mein is kay samnay beth kar is ko batahoon kay tumari BIWI ko mein nay khawab mein seenay say lagaya huwa thah aur us nay mujjay phir meri bemari door ho-gahee. Ya phir kitaab publish karoon aur likhoon, Ashraf Ali Thanvi ki jawan sweet 16 sala beti ko mein nay khawab mein dekha ... aur ham donoon jawani ki masti mein aik dosray ko galay laga-hay kharay hen ... aur tabeer batahoon kay mein gunnah kabeera karoon ka ... aur is khawab ko TV par bi ... radio par bi ... kitaboon mein publish karoon ... aur Thanvi ki sweet 16 sala beti ka khoob charcha karoon aur batahoon kesay galay millay ... sari tafseel likhoon ... moment ko artist kee tara lafzoon mein capture karoon takay readers ... meri khawab ko peren toh mehsoos keren kay khud dekh rahay hen ... agar aap aisay khawab bana kar saath is ko pesh keren toh dekhna yeh kesay rawayati Deoband wali gaali aur mughallazaat par ahay ga ... Is ko sirf dukh is kay joh apnay hen uneeh ka hoga. Allah kay Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ki izzat, un ki beti ki izzat, Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anha) ki izzat, Imam Hassan aur Hussain ki izzat aur in ki bey-zati ka nah is ko pata heh aur nah parwah. Is nay gaali sirf aaik hi baat par deni heh, THANVI ki sweet 16 sala beti, ko khawab mein galay mein keun lagaya ... teri jurrat Barelwi ... tooh Kafir ho gaya ... Barelwi Mushrik ho gaya tooh Barelwi. Yeh Kafir Thanvi aur is'see jaisay Kafiroon kay peechay lattoo bana huwa heh sirf ineeh kay wasteh yeh zinda heh. Allamah Anayatullah Sanglahill (rahimullah) ka andaaz ... ashidda alal kuffar ... apnahen. Yeh tawaqoh mat keren kay aap khawab ka scan lagahen gay toh yeh masla samaj jahay ga. Yeh woh paak matti nahin jis par bheej aur paani dalenh toh imaan ka poda uggay ga. Yeh Kufr ka reykastan heh aur is mein agar Islam ka bheej bona heh toh pehlay joh Kufr ka zang laga heh us ko zarboon say utaren. Aur phir agar ho saka toh shahid yeh murda Kafir biznillah zinda ho jahay. Yeh ashidda alal kuffaar ka misdaq heh aur Kafiroon wala sulook rakhen.

Jitni dafa tum apni jawal-baazi ko dobara paste karnay aur meri tamam posts ka ba-qaida jawab nahin detay. Ya phir kalmah paro aur Musalman ho jaho aur mein dobara paste karna chor doon ga.

Roman Urdu mein yeh sab kuch par sakta heh. Urdu rasm ul-khat mein likha talb is leeyeh kar raha heh keun kay is nay likhay huway material ko kissi ko dena heh ta-kay woh jawab likh deh aur woh romanised Urdu parh nahin sakta.

@HanafiGroup HanafiGroup Sawal 1: Kia tumaray nazdeek aap (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko kulli ilm ghayb hasil heh? Jawab: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko ma kana wama yakoon ... i.e. jo kuch ho chuka aur jo kuch hoga ... ka ilm hasil heh. Is mahdood aur takhsees ko kull ilm kaha jata heh. Yehni kull ilm ma kana wama yakoon ... magr tafseel ko bar bar doranay kay bajahay sirf kull kay ikhtisar ko bayan keeya jata heh. Yeh ilm mahdood heh aur ba muqabila e Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) baaz banta heh. HanafiGroup Sawal 2: Kia jis kissi ko juzwi ilm ghayb hasil ho to kia us ko aalim ul-ghayb kaha ja sakta heh? Jawab: Pehli baat Aalim ul-Ghayb kay ilfaaz khaas Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) wasteh istimal huway hen aur in ka ghayr wasteh istimal jaiz nahin. Dosri baat aap ka sawal aap ki ilmi yateemi ka subut heh keun keh ilqab/title/khitaab ka talluq juzwi ya qulli say nahin. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) Rauf ar-Raheem heh (Quran: 16:7). Aur Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko Rauf ar-Raheem kay ilqaab bi ata keeyeh (Quran 9:128). Ilqabaat juzzi aur qulli tor par kissi khoobi ya ilm kay ata honay say nahin deeyeh jatay. Aik aur misaal leh lenh. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) nay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko rahmatal lil alameen farmaya. Sawal heh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ki rahmat nay Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ki tamam Rahmat e la-mahdood ko paa leeya aur phir khitaab mila ya juzwi rahmat ki bina par khitaab mila? Zahir heh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) rahmat mahdood aur juzwi heh. Aur aap ka asool toh yahi heh nah kay joh kamil darja sift/khoobi/ilm par ho ya pa leh to phir khitab/title kay layk hota heh. Kissa mukhtasar khitab ka ata hona darja akmaliat par honay ki waja say nahin balkay Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ki atah heh juzwi par bi ata kar deh. Jistera RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) kay title rahmatal lil alameen ko Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) kay wasteh istimal nahin keeya ja sakta is'see tera aalim ul-ghayb ko RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) wasteh istimal nahin keeya ja sakta. Aur aik kay khitab ko dosray wasteh nah bolnay ka ki waja juzwi ya la-mahdood nahin ... keun kay rahmat e illahi la-mahdood heh aur agar is bina par khitab ka itlaq hota to phir Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) hi rahmatal lil alameen kay layk heh ... magr Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) nay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko ata keeya. HanafiGroup Sawal 3: Kia janwar parinda kay pass bi kohi ghayb ki khabr ho sakti heh? Jawab: HanafiGroup Sahib ko yeh bi pata nahin kay sawal kesay karoon aur kia sawal karoon. Kissi bi Musalman ka yeh nazria nahin kay janwar/parindeh ko Ghayb ki khabr hoti heh. Ghayb ki khabr Nabi/Rasool ko Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ki taraf say deeh jaati heh. Note: Keun kay janab ko yeh bi pata nahin kay sawal kesay karoon aur kia karoon is leyeh mein khud hi HanafiGroup ki taraf say sawal pooch leta hoon aur jawab bi deh deta hoon. Sawal: Kia janwar aur parinda ko bi ilm ghayb ho sakta heh? Jawab: Musalman sirf janwaroon wasteh ilm ghayb say mushayda ghayb aur sama ghayb kay qail hen. Aur woh bi sirf kutta aur gadda wasteh keun kay Hadith mein is ka subut heh. Hadith mein aya heh kay kutta bhonkta aur gadda awaaz nikalta heh keun kay woh ghayb dekhtay hen: "Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: The Prophet said: When you hear the barking of dogs and the braying of asses at night, seek refuge in Allah, for they see which you do not see." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B42, H5084, here.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aap nay kaha kay Thanvi sahib ilm ghayb ko nahin mantay balkay sawal jawab kar rahay hen taqay agay walay ko qail keren. Kia chawal baazi mari heh aap nay bi. Abdul Shakoor lakhnavi nay yeh chawal sab say pehlay mari thi kay Thanvi Ilm ghayb nah RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) wasteh manta heh aur nah kissi aur wasteh. Magr is kay bar-khilaaf Manzoor Naumani nay apni kitab bawariq ul ghayb aur Ashraf Ali Thanvi nay apni kitab Bawadir al-Nawadir mein RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) wasteh ilm ghayb mana heh. Magr us ki taraf baad mein tawajoh karoon ga. Pehlay gustakhi kay pehloo ko letay hen. Misaal tor par, mein nahin manta aap HanafiGrou kissi kanjri kay bachay hen aur nah hi manta hoon kay aap khalis asal haram zaday hen, abh mein aap HanafiGroup nay mutaliq yeh donoon nah mantay huway bi kahoon ... HanafiGroup haram zaday kissi kanjri kay bachay ... aap batahen yeh aap ko gaali hogi kay nahin? Gaali aur towheen huwi nah! Bilfarz Ashraf Ali Thanv ilm ghayb RasoolAllah wasteh nah mantay huway ... sawal jawab karta heh ... baaz ghayb thah ya kull ghayb ... aur nah hi Thanvi janwaroon (i.e. gaddeh/kutteh) wasteh ilm ghayb nahin manta ... woh sirf aalim ul-ghayb kay itlaq kay radd karnay kay chakkar mein yeh sawal jawab karta heh ... toh kia aisa kehna gustakhi nahin: “Phir yeh kay aap ki zaat muqaddisa par ilm ghayb ka hokam keeya jana agar ba-qawl Zaid sahih ho to phir daryaft talb yeh amr heh keh is Ghayb say murad baaz ghayb heh ya kull ghayb agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” [Hifz ul-Iman, here] Nah mantay huway bi gustakhi banti heh. Mein nay pehlay Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta'ala anha) ka waqia bataya thah ... here, here, ... Kia Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta'ala anha) ya baqi Sahabah auratoon ko gaddoon/kuttoon barabar jantay thay? Nahin jantay thay nah! Phir bi towheen ho gahi. Sirf paleed janwaroon kafiroon tawaifoon ki list mein gina jana hee towheen ka asar deta heh aur jahan tashbeeh aur takhsees Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ki takhsees/khasoosiat ka hi inqaar keeya jahay wahan par gustakhi kesay nah ho. Note keren ... Thanvi Sahib nay ilm mein khasoosiat nah honay ki waja say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ki joh takhsees janwaroon, pagaloon bachoon par thi us ka inqaar kar deeya ... ibarat ghor say parh lenh: "... agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” Bilfarz janwaroon, parindoon, pagaloon, bachoon ka ilm Ghayb RasoolAllah jaisa hota toh kia phir RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko in par takhsees/khasoosiat hasil nahin. Nabi ko makhlooq par khasoosiat nahin? Thanvi Sahib nay mutlaqan Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ki ...yehni tamam khasoosiatoon ka inqaar kar deeya ... kia aqil ki pagal par takhsees sabat nahin? Kia insaan ko janwar par khasoosiat hasil nahin? kia Nabi ko in tamam jin ka Thanvi nay zikr keeya in sab par takhsees baghayr ilm ghayb hasil nahin? Jab heh toh phir takhsees sabat honay kay bavjood inqaar karna aur aisa kay lafz say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko pagaloon janwaroon bachoon say tashbeeh dena Towheen/gaali wasteh hee banta heh. RasoolAllah ki khasoosiat ka inqar kar kay pagaloon janwaroon jaisa sabat karna towheen nahin toh aur kia heh? Aakhir mein arz heh kay gustakhi baghayr aqeedah rakhay bi ho jati heh. Abh atay hen aap kay jhoot ki taraf kay Ashraf Ali Thanvi Ilm Ghayb ko nahin mantay thay. Yeh lenh aap kay jhoot ka parda faash hota heh: “A Shar’ri example of this would be it is jaiz (i.e. permissible) to say that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has granted limited knowledge of Ghayb to Prophets but it is not permissible to say they are Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Bawadir al-Nawadir, Page; 532, by; Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, here.] Urdu asal ibarat aap khud parh lenh neechay paste karta hoon: Jab yeh sabat huwa kay Thanvi Sahib RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) wasteh baaz ilm ghayb ko jaiz mantay hen aur ayn mutabiq Shariah batatay hen toh phir Hifz ul-Iman mein,"... agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” , joh baaz ilm ghayb ko tajweez kia aur tashbeeh aur tashreeh kee apnay aqeedeh kay mutabiq hi ki. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@HanafiGroup Hifz ul-Iman ki ibarat kufria par aap ko tafseeli jawab deeya ja chooka heh aur aap jawab nahin deh saktay. Koshish mein ho keh agay peechay mozoo ko gaseeta jahay. Hifz ul-Iman ki asal ibarat jis par gustakhi ka ilzam aur khasoosiat e ilm ghayb ki nafi ka inqar ka hokam jari huwa: “Phir yeh kay aap ki zaat muqaddisa par ilm ghayb ka hokam keeya jana agar ba-qawl Zaid sahih ho to phir daryaft talb yeh amr heh keh is Ghayb say murad baaz ghayb heh ya kull ghayb agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” [Hifz ul-Iman.] HanafiGroup ki ibarat: “Phir yeh kay Hazrat ki zaat muqaddas par ilm ghayb agar ba-qawl Zaid (sahil) sahih ho to ham us say daryaft kartay hen keh is ghayb say murad kia heh yehni ghayb ka har fard ya baaz ghayb hee keun nah ho pas agar baaz ghayb murad heh toh aap ki takhsees nah rahi keun keh baaz ghayb ka ilm Zaid wa Umar balkeh har bachay aur deewana balkeh hawayannat ko bi hasil heh.” [Ref: HanafiGroup – Ki Manh Pasand.] Donoon ibaraat kay ilfaaz mein kafi farq heh magr mein sirf joh bunyad ikhtilaf heh us ki taraf tawajjoh dalahoon ga. Asal ibarat Hifz ul-Iman mein lafz aisa ko HanafiGroup nay hifz kar deeya aur aisa ki zameer ki jaga lafz baaz mutabadil kar deeya. Yehni asal ibarat mein ilfaaz “… aisa ilm ghayb …” kay thay magr janab nay tehreef kartay huway ussay “… baaz ilm ghayb …” kar deeya. Janab yeh dawa keren kay aisa ki zameer baaz ilm ghayb ki taraf lot’ti heh toh phir aisa karna tashreef huwa tahreef nah. Tashreeh tab hoti jab aisa ki zameer ko hifz nah keeya jata. Asal ibarat mein lafz aisa aik khaas mana deta heh jis ko hifz tahreef heh tashreeh keh tor mein Hanafi group agar aisa ki zameer saath baaz ka izafa kar letay toh tahreef kay ilzaam ka jawaz nah hota. Yehni agar HanafiGroup Sahib apni is ibarat ko “… baaz ilm ghayb …” is tera pesh kartay “… aisa (baaz) ilm ghayb …” to tahreef kay ilzaam say bari hotay. Zameer aisa kay mutabadil baaz ko lana darust nahin. Dekhyeh khud HanafiGroup sahib nay meri baat ki ta’eed aik aur jaga ki aur voh bi is’see ibarat mein. “… ilm ghayb agar ba-qawl Zaid (sahil) sahih ho to ham …” Is jaga par HanafiGroup Sahib nay Zaid ki tashreeh Sahil say ki magr Zaid ko hifz nahin keeya balkay brackets mein lafz Sahil ka izafa keeya joh tashreeh banta heh. Magr janab nay asal ibarat mein lafz aisa jis par kitaben likhi gaheen aur munazray huway us ko hifz kar deeya. i) Kehta heh kay asool munazra mutabiq pehlay apna ihtiraaz pesh kiya jata heh joh HanafiGroup nay asaan ilfaaz mein likh deeya. Haqiqat yeh keh HanafiGroup Sahib nay ihtiraaz pesh nahin keeya balkay Hifz ul-Iman kay jaisi aik ibarat pesh kee heh. Magr yeh ibarat ko ihtiraaz kay tor pesh kar rahay hen. ii) Hanafi group nay kaha: “Asool munazra mutabiq pehlay apna ihtiraaz pesh kiya jata heh jo mein nay asaan ilfaaz mein likh deeya.” Asool e Munazra mein dawah aur ihtiraaz meray zumidari heh aur aap ka jawab dawah aur ihtiraaz ko uthana. Aap ko Hifz ul-Iman par kab itiraaz huwa joh aap ihtiraaz ko pesh kar rahay hen? Ihtiraaz Ahle Islam ko ho aur pesh Ahle Kufr say HanafiGroup kar raha heh. Hamara ihtiraaz kia heh voh toh alhamdulillah mein pesh karon ga. iii) Agay likhta heh: “Muhammed Ali tumara ihtiraz is’see aqeedeh pay hay joh mein nay upar pesh keeya heh?” Hamara ihtiraaz Hifz ul-Iman ki ibarat aur us mein joh Kufriat hen un par heh. Voh kia hen us ki tafseel aynda ahay gi. Magr mukhtasar Ahle Islam ka nazria heh keh RasoolAllah sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam ko baaz ilm al-ghayb hasil heh. Baaz ilm ghayb kay is aqeedeh par ahle Islam ko kohi ihtiraaz nahin. Thanvi Sahib ki ibaraat jis ki waja say ikhtilaf o hokum kufr jari huwa: “Phir yeh kay aap ki zaat muqaddisa par ilm ghayb ka hokam keeya jana agar ba-qawl Zaid sahih ho to phir daryaft talb yeh amr heh keh is Ghayb say murad baaz ghayb heh ya kull ghayb agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” [Hifz ul-Iman, here] Ahle Islam kay Ahle Kufr ki ibaraat par do wujuhaat ki bina par ihtiraaz heh: i) RasoolAllah sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam kay ilm ghayb ki takhsees/khasoosiat ka inqaar keeya aur is waja say Kufr sar’ri mein para. ii) Thanvi Sahib nay Hifz ul-Iman mein RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko janwaroon, pagaloon, bachoon say tashbeeh deh kar ghaali di aur towheen kar kay Kafiroon say huwa. Takhsees buyadi tor par chaar tor say sabat heh: i) Allah kay Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ka ilm Ghayb qatti aur kamil darja yaqeeni heh jis mein shak o shuba nahin aur Sahihah mein shak karnay wala gumrah aur mutawatira mein shak karnay wala Kafir agar toba baghayr maray toh. Aur RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilawah tamam insanoon janwaroon ko joh ilm ghayb hasil ho voh zanni aur shak shuba kay saath heh. Is sirf bunyad kar agar malhooz rakha jahay toh kia baaz ilm Ghayb qatti ko baaz ilm Ghayb zanni par khasoosiat hasil nahin? Sirf is’see bunyad par say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ki khasoosiat/takhsees sabat ho chuki. ii) Mazeed takhsees wasteh miqdar uloom e ghaybiyyah ko hee leeya jahay toh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’allam) ka uloom e Ghabiyyah ki miqdar is Hadith say maloom ho jati heh jis mein awal qaynaat say ta qayamat kay ahwal kay bayan ka zikr heh. Jab yeh uloom e Ghaybiyyah ki miqdar RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’allam) wasteh sabat heh toh Thanvi Sahib kon say kuttay billay khanzir behal gadday bachay pagal ko jantay hen jin ko itna ilm hasil heh? Agar nahin toh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb ki wasilah miqdar say takhsees sabat huwi. iii) Qaynat kay awal say qayamat din sab kuch bata deeya wali Hadith ki tarf aik dafa phir motowajjoh hoon. Is Hadith say nah sirf miqdaar ki tadad sabat huwi balkay yeh bi sabat hota heh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nay joh waqiat bayan keeyeh un ka talluq zamana maazi, zamana haal, aur zamana mustaqbil say thah. Jin pagaloon, janwaroon, bachoon ki bunyad par RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ki khasoosiat ka radd aur inqaar keeya un mein say kon hen jinoon nay zamana maazi, haal, mustaqbil kay Ilm e Ghayb ki voh tafseel batahi joh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) chukay hen? Agar kohi nahin toh phir maanh lenh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb ki takhsees sabat ho chuki. iv) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay Ilm Ghayb mein maazi haal mustaqbil ka mushayda ghayb, sama ghayb waghyra sabat heh … misaal tor par jannat mein Sahabi kay qadmoon ki awaaz ko sun lena … aur jannat/dozakh musalla namaz par kharay ho kar dekhna … Thanvi Sahib aur un ki aal e Deoband aik aisa gadday, pagal, bachay keeray makoray ka bata denh jin mein yeh khaboobi sabat huwi ho. Agar kohi heh aisa aap kay ilm mein toh; lakh lanat hi us’si taraf mar aur us’see ka kalmah parh. Aur agar nahin aur yaqeenan qattan kohi nahin toh phir maanh lenh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb ki khasoosiat sabat huwi. v) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay Ilm Ghayb ki khasoosiat ka munkir nah tadad uloom mein khasoosiat, qatti ilm mein khasoosiat, aur Ghayb ki kismoon mein khasoosiat, aur teenoon zamanoon kay ghuyub jan-nay mein khaoosiat ka imaan rakhta heh aur is’see waja say khasoosiat/takhsees ka inqaar karta heh. In chaar bunyadi nuqtoon say sabat huwa kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay Ilm Ghayb ki Takhsees/khasoosiat sabat heh. Aur joh is khasoosiat/takhsees ka munkir heh ya toh voh parlay darjjay ka jahil heh aur agar aalim bazahir heh toh phir bila shak o shuba pakka aur sacha aur sucha Kafir nahin toh murtad zeroor heh. Aur is hukum Kufr ki bunyaden doh hen: i) murtad nay khasoosiat e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ka radd karnay wasteh janwaroon, pagloon, bachoon ko RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ki khasoosiat mein shamal keeya. ii) Aur yeh lehaz nah keeya kay aisoon ko shamil karnay say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko pagloon, janwaroon bachoon say tashbeeh deeh aur shaan mein kami or towheen ki. Tashbeeh Hifz ul-Iman Doh Tarika Say Sabat Huwi: i) Tashbeeh Isharatan: Ahadith say sabat heh kay aik Sahabi nay Um ul-Momineen Aisha (radiallah ta’ala anha) kay samnay bayan keeya kay kutta gadda aurat agar namazi say guzray toh namaz toot jaati heh … toh un-noon nay farmaya kay aap nay auratoon ko kuttoon gaddoon say tashbeeh deh kar mila deeya … aur Hadith say sabat heh kay Sahabi nay ilfaaz tashbeeh kay nah keeyeh thay balkay sirf zikr mein auratoon ko kuttoon gaddoon mein shamil keeya … misaal tor par … “Kutta, Fir’aun, Thanvi, khanzir jandar hen.” Tashbeeh wasteh aisa, waisa, jaisa, istimal nahin huway sirf gina to towheen sabat huwi … abh readers khud hi faisla kar lenh kay kuttay, khanzir kay zikr saath Thanvi aur Firawn ki tauheen huwi ya Thanvi Wa Firaun kay zikr mein kuttay aur Khanzir ki towheen huwi. Hasal kalam keh Tashbeeh wasteh ilfaaz tashbeeh ka zikr zeroori nahin sirf paleedoon kafiroon mein gina janay say towheen ho jaati heh. Thanvi Sahib kay lafz ko agar bilkul hi hifz kar denh ya taweel itna is-qadr aur yeh bi keren toh kuch farq nahin parta keun kay phir tashbeeh isharatan sabat huwi joh asool Um ul-Momineen say sabat heh. ii) Tasbeeh Wazia: Ibarat Hifz ul-Iman mein wazia lafz aisa likha heh: “… agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” Aisa tashbeeh wasteh istimal hota heh. Agar aisa ko zaat e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb taraf lotaya jahay toh phir mana huwa; joh ilm ghayb RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko hasil heh aisa ilm ghayb bi janwaroon pagloon bachoon ko hasil heh to phir takhsees nah rahi. Aur agar aisa ko baaz ki taraf lotaya jahay toh tashbeeh ka rasta badalta heh tashbeeh khatam nahin hoti. Ibarat ka mana hoga … ilm ghayb joh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko hasil heh aisa baaz zaid Umar, Sabi majnoon hawanat ko hasil heh toh takhsees ki waja nah rahi. Hifz ul-Iman ki tashbeeh do wujuhat ki bina par Kufr huwi: i) Agar Thanvi RasoolAllah ka ilm ghayb ko qatti yaqeeni kamil akmal la rayb wala manta heh toh janwaroon pagaloon bachoon say tashbeeh deh kar pagloon bachoon janwaroon kay ilm ghayb ko bi qatti yaqeeni kamil akmal tehraya. Jis waja say Allamah Umar Ucharvi (rahimullah) nay ibarat Hifz ul-Iman kay radd mein likha kay phir agar in sab ka ilm qatti yaqeeni heh toh phir RasoolAllah (sallallahua alyhi wa aalihi was’sallam) par keun imaan laya jah udhar kuttoon ki taraf mar aur un par imaan lah. ii) Dosra mana yeh bi nikalta heh kay agar janwaroon ka ilm qatti/yaqeeni Thanvi nah manay balkay Ahle Islam ki tara zanni shak shuba wala manay toh phir aisoon kay ilm ghayb say tashbeeh deh kar us nay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ko bi zanni shak o shuba wala tehra deeya. Jis mein towheen e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bi huwi aur un kay ilm ki khasoosiat ka inqaar bi aur mutawatira say sabat qatti yaqeeni ilm ka darja gira kar shak o shuba wala tehraya aur Nabuwat e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aur Wahi e Illahi joh milti thi us mein shak o shuba dala aur yeh bi Kufr heh. Shahid Ahle Kufr kahen keh kay aisa mana itna, is-qadr, yeh mein istimal huwa heh jaisay Manzoor Naumani nay Taweelat keenh. Aur in mana mein aisa Tashbeeh wasteh nahin. Awal toh janab kay gar say hi Hussain Ahmad Madani ki gawahi mojood heh kay lafz aisa hifz ul-Iman mein tashbeeh wasteh istimal huwa heh. Chalen choren Hussain Ahmad Madani pagal thah bhonk gaya ham Deobandi toh nah maneh gay. Aayeh sabat keren kay lafz aisa yahan par sirf Tashbeeh wasteh hi ho sakta heh aur agar mana is-qadr, itna, yeh mein bi ho toh phir bi Tashbeeh wasteh hee hen. Dekhyeh asool musallam heh kay kissi aik ki kissi dosray par fazeelat ya barabari ya khami sabat karni ho toh taqabuli muwazna lazam heh yehni comparision/tashbeeh. Zaid ki agar Amr par Takhsees sabat karni ho ya takhsees ka radd toh donoon ki khoobiyoon ka comparision yehni Zaid aur Amr mein tashbeeh/comparision lazam heh. Warna ba-ghayr comparision aik ki dosray par bartari sabat nahin hoti. Thanvi Sahib ki ibarat Hifz ul-Iman mein taqabuli jaiza leeya gaya, tashbeeh dee gahi, aur nateejan kaha gaya kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko ilm ghayb kay jannay ki waja say janwaroon, pagaloon bachoon par kohi takhsees hasil nahin. Is waja say ibarat mein taqabul subut Tashbeeh heh. Aur yeh bi musallam heh kay Tashbeeh taqabuli bi hoti heh. Misaal tor par lion bhot bahadur aur taqatwar heh aur aisay hi Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Allah kay lion hen. Abh aap itna ko is-qadr, itna, yeh, aisa ba-mana baaz, aisa ba-mana ilm ghayb Nabi, jisteraf bi lotahen ibarat ki bunyad mein taqabuli jaiza heh jis waja say har aik harf mutabadil mein tashbeeh hi pahi jahay gi. Abh Umm ul-Momineen kay asool Tashbeeh Isharatan kay asool ko mad e nazr rakh kar HanafiGroup ki ibarat ki taraf atay hen. HanafiGroup Sahib ki ibarat yeh heh: “Phir yeh kay Hazrat ki zaat muqaddas par ilm ghayb agar ba-qawl Zaid (sahil) sahih ho to ham us say daryaft kartay hen keh is ghayb say murad kia heh yehni ghayb ka har fard ya baaz ghayb hee keun nah ho pas agar baaz ghayb murad heh toh aap ki takhsees nah rahi keun keh baaz ghayb ka ilm Zaid wa Umar balkeh har bachay aur deewana balkeh hawayannat ko bi hasil heh.” [Ref: HanafiGroup – Ki Manh Pasand.] Janab nay koshish ki kay aisa ko nikaal kar tashbeeh ko hifz kar deeya jahay. Magr kufr jahl say Islam ka haq kabi chup nahin paya. Agar aisa ko bilkul hifz keeya jahay toh tab bi tashbeeh sabat huwi Umm ul-Momineen kay asool say, aur takhsees ka inqaar toh janab ki ibarat mein mojood heh. Jis ki explanation aur waja, i.e. ibarat hifz ul-Iman mein taqabuli jaiza, heh. Aur hukum kufr waja tashbeeh aur takhsees ka inqaar heh. Aur Thanvi aur HanafiGroup ki ibarat mein takhsees aur tashbeeh mojood heh. Farq sirf yeh kay Thanvi ki ibarat mein aisa bazahir mojood heh aur HanafiGroup ki manpasand ibarat (joh asal mein al-Muhannad ki ibarat ki naqal heh) mein tashbeeh implied/isharatan heh.

Wahhabi: Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 both state three Talaq were deemed one during life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and during Caliphate of Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). In this context Hadith (-2191) of Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is interpreted to mean; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made his three Talaq into one. Sunni: (i) How do you know Ahadith, Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 are inclusive of all/every three Talaq in one sitting! Without contextual information it would be leap of false Qiyas to act on this Hadith and apply it upon every three Talaq. You’re aware of principle Ihtimal (i.e. possibility) invalidates Istidlal (i.e. inference). (ii) You believe, correct me if I am wrong, ALL instances of three Talaq in one sitting are ONE TALAQ. Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 does not state ALL such Talaqs are one. You’ve assumed all into text Hadith. There is Ihtimal (i.e. possibility) only some three Talaq in one sitting are one and not every three Talaq in one sitting. And this Ihtimal invalidates your Istidlal. (iii) Hadith (-2191) of Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) does not explicitly state companion gave three Talaq in one sitting it just states he divorced her irrevocably. Ihtimal is that he could have divorced her on three menstrual periods. This Ihtimal also invalidates your Istidlal. Wahhabi: i) Imam Abu Dawud (rahimullah) said Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had issued three Talaq in one sitting. You said he could have given three Talaq on three menstrual periods. That cannot be possible because of two main reasons: ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have validated divorce. Why would he not invalidate marriage if it was three Talaqs as prescribed by Quran? iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recited verse this verse admonishes him: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their appointed periods." Why would Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) quote this verse then? This can only make sense if Abd Yazid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had divorced Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) against the instructed method. Sunni: If you can get plausible answer to your points you will agree Ihtimalaat have invalidated your inferred evidence/argument? Wahhabi: No! If your plausible answer fits into text of Hadith I will concede point. Sunni: i) Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and Imam Malik (radiallah ta’ala anhu) were closer to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then Imam Abu Dawood (radiallah ta’ala anhu). When I cited their judgments as evidence you rejected their judgments and you cited what Imam Abu Dawood’s (rahimullah) said to substantiate your position. You can abandon companions and their judgments and you expect me to adhere to judgment of Imam Abu Dawud (rahimullah). You shouldn’t expect and shouldn’t demand that I hold to scholarly views which you reject yourself. ii) There have been special exceptions to norm. Companion who broke his fast and as an act of atonement … he was told go eat dates yourself and feed your family. Quran indicates four wives but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had eleven wives. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) may have made special exception in case of three Talaq issued by Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu). iii) You did not read the Hadith properly. Hadith states Abd Yazid divorced Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) and then married woman of Banu Muzaynah. Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) went to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he instructed Abd Yazid to divorce his wife. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed Abd Yazid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to divorce his new wife not Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) because she was already divorced. He divorced his new wife and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed him to take his ex-wife back. Then recited verse quoted by you because he divorced his new wife instantly with three Talaq in one sitting. With this interpretation we have proof for an exceptional case of three Talaqs being made void but no proof for three Talaqs becoming one. You can argue no he recited verse because of Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) but my interpretation proves there is Ihtimal of another interpretation in this Hadith and therefore your Istidlal is invalid. [Readers should take note that I had not consulted other Ahadith on this topic and interpreted Hadith-2191 in isolation.] Wahhabi: I can see how you derived your understanding of Hadith-2191 but Brother I cannot accept Ihtimal invalidating Istidlal principle. How can that be correct? Sunni: It is an agreed upon principle by all sects that Ihtimal of another interpretation invalidates Istidlal. You presented these evidences to prove your position. I argued back proving these evidences do not conclusively prove three Talaq issued in one sitting is one. It is your job to provide satisfactory evidence in support of your position. Wahhabi: This has turned into a never ending discussion so I will purpose way to end it: i) I quoted these Ahadith; Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492. If you quote me evidence; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) deemed three Talaq issued in one sitting as valid I will concede and accept our position is not established. ii) About Hadith of Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) you theorized one Talaq was intended and two additional were for emphasis. If you prove this I will concede and admit our understanding of Hadith is incorrect. If you fail you will admit your position is invalid. Right? It is time for Namaz/Salah. Salam Alaykum. Sunni: I will acknowledge lack of my knowledge and after thoroughly investigating however long it takes if I find our position is invalid I will leave it. [He signed out.] Episode Two – Return Of Sunni And Truth Obliterating Falsehood: Sunni: As promised my Brother I am back. Salam Alaykum. Wahhabi: Brother I am so glad you’re back. Wa Alaykum Salam. Are you back with substance or back for more beating you took last time? Sunni: I don’t recall me giving up under pretext that it has become never ending discussion when things got hard for me. Smile. Wahhabi: I purposed way to solve the dispute. You have had week to prepare for this so I am guessing you believe you’re prepared. Sunni: Prepared as much as I needed to be. You purposed how we can solve the dispute and it is absolutely fine but needs tiny improvement. Wahhabi: Brother you’re making excuses because you know you cannot meet my demands. Your improvements will be changes which you will be able to meet. Sunni: Brother I am not making any changes to what you demanded but about to say all your evidence needs to be explained in a way that no contradiction between my evidence and your evidence remains. Wahhabi: How you going to do that? Sunni: Watch me and learn. First I will explain your evidence in light of prophetic Sunnah and then meet your demands. Wahhabi: OK! Make it harder for yourself. Lolz. Why don’t you just give-up this bravado Brother because we both know your just empty vessel making loud noise. Sunni: Your first evidence was Hadith of Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Abd Yazid the father of Rukanah and his brothers divorced Umm Rukanah and married a woman of the tribe of Muzaynah. She went to the Prophet and said: He is of no use to me except that he is as useful to me as a hair; and she took a hair from her head. So separate me from him. The Prophet became furious. He called on Rukanah and his brothers. He then said to those who were sitting beside him. Do you see so-and-so who resembles Abdu Yazid in respect of so-and-so; and so-and-so who resembles him in respect of so-and-so? They replied: Yes. The Prophet said to Abdu Yazid: Divorce her (the wife from Banu Muzaynah). Then he did so. He said: Take your wife the mother of Rukanah and his brothers, back in marriage. He said: I have divorced her by three pronouncements, Messenger of Allah. He said: I know: Take her back. He then recited the verse: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their appointed periods." [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2191, here.] With regards to it I said it is not about three Talaq in one instance but I was wrong. I affirm it was/is about three Talaq in one instance. Wahhabi: This refutes me doesn’t it Brother? Lolz. Sunni: Summarizing before I start. Calm down. I also said three Talaq in this Hadith can be in sense; one was intended, and two for emphasis. And I have found evidence which supports this indirectly. Wahhabi: Your evidence is in Fiqha of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah)? Lolz. Sunni: “It was narrated from Abdullah bin Ali bin Yazid bin Rukanah, from his father, from his grandfather that: He divorced his wife irrevocably (i.e. three times), then he came to the Messenger of Allah and asked him. He said: ‘What did you mean by that?’ He said: ‘One (divorce).’ He said: ‘By Allah did you only mean one (divorce) thereby?’ He said: ‘By Allah, I meant one.’ Then he sent her back to him.” Muhammad bin Majah said: I heard Abul-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad Tanafisi saying: ‘How noble is this Hadith.’ Ibn Majah said: 'Abu Ubaid left it (i.e. did not narrate it) and Ahmad was fearful of it. [Ref: Ibn Majah, B10, H2051, here.] “Ali b. Yazid b. Rukanah reported on the authority of his father from his grandfather that he (Rukanah) divorced his wife absolutely (i.e. three times); so he came to the Messenger of Allah. He asked (him): What did you intend? He said: A single utterance of divorce. He said: Do you swear by Allah? He replied: I swear by Allah. He said: It stands as you intended.” Abu Dawud said: This tradition is sounder than that of Ibn Juraij that Rukanah divorced his wife by three pronouncements, for they are the members of his family and they are more aware for him. The tradition of Ibn Juraij has been narrated by some children of Abu Rafi' from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas. “ [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2202, here.] Wahhabi: Give me link I want to check reference. Sunni: He gave three Talaqs intended one and logically the other two were for emphasis so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) decided it was one Talaq. Wahhabi: Brother I didn’t know these Ahadith existed. I trusted Ahle Hadith scholarship. Sunni: I know Brother. You have been flying little too high due to your Taqleed of Wahhabi scholarship but I must continue. Wahhabi: I wasn’t being arrogant Brother Ali. I was just messing with you. Sunni: You also quoted following Hadith: “Tawus said: Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that a divorce by three pronouncements was made a single one during the time of the Prophet and of Abu-Bakr and in the early days of the caliphate of Umar? He replied: Yes.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2194, here.] Note Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) narrated this Hadith. Following Hadith is also narrated by Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in which he clearly states that three Talaq was one if couples had not had sexual relationship: “Tawus said A man called Abu Al Sahba used to ask Ibn Abbas questions frequently. He asked “Do you know that when a man divorced his wife by three pronouncements before sexual intercourse with her, they (the people) made it a single divorce during the time of the Apostle of Allah, of Abu Bakr and in the early phase of the caliphate of ‘Umar?” Ibn “Abbas said “Yes, when a man divorced his wife by three pronouncement before sexual intercourse they made it a single divorce during the time of the Apostle of Allah, of Abu Bakr and in the early phase of the caliphate of ‘Umar. When he saw that the people frequently divorced (by three pronouncements) he said “Make them operative on them (i.e., on women).” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2193, here.] Note this Hadith is also narrated by Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu). In Hadith-2197 he did not narrate the context but in Hadith-2193 he narrated context, when and why, three Talaq became one. In your understanding EVERY/ALL instances of three divorces in an instant is ONE divorce therefore this Hadith does not support your position. Wahhabi: I want to check Urdu translation. There is something fishy in these translations. Sunni: You said three Talaqs are one and you quoted these Ahadith to support your foundation: “Tawus said: Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that a divorce by three pronouncements was made a single one during the time of the Prophet and of Abu-Bakr and in the early days of the caliphate of Umar? He replied: Yes.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2194, here.] “Abu Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that three (divorces) were treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and that of Abu Bakr, and during three (years) of the caliphate of Umar? Ibn Abbas said: Yes.” [Ref: Muslim, B9, H3492, here.] This is clearly and absolutely contradicted by following Hadith from Sahih Muslim: “Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Enlighten us with your information whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr. He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of Umar people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single breath as one).” [Ref: Sahih Muslim, B9, H3493, here.] According to this Hadith it was Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) who allowed three divorces to be treated as one but in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this was not the case. Wahhabi: Brother you’re talking rubbish. Where are you getting all this? Sunni: Brother Read Ahadith don’t shoot the delivery service guy and if you don’t believe me check Urdu translations. Wahhabi: Even if this is true Hadith then there is contradiction. Sunni: There is no contradiction between Hadith-3493 and what you quoted Brother. Your evidence of Ahadith in summary is: Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 are about SPECIFIC three Talaq issued in one breath to a virgin turning to one Talaq. Where as my evidence of Hadith-3493 is about GENERALLY three Talaq were not one Talaq. Wahhabi: You will have to provide proof that three Talaq were not one in other instances and I will accept. Sunni: I will but first I need to put something else in context. We established that three Talaq were generally three. Only except was in context of virgin getting divorced with instantaneous divorce or person intending one divorce but emphasizing it with two more. Now question is which Talaq did Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made three in his Caliphate time? Answer is all exceptions including three Talaq of virgin, three Talaq given but one intended, two to emphasize the first one, he made them all three. Wahhabi: I am still waiting on your answer to my explanation of Sunnah of Caliph Hadith. Sunni: Noted that down Brother next time. Right now I am trying to go through this portion. Wahhabi: It would be interesting to read what you have to say on that. Sunni: Now what remains is for me to prove that three divorces were three even in time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It is recorded in Hadith that Uwaimir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) divorced his wife three times in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`idi: Uwaimir Al-Ajlani came to Asim bin Adi Al-Ansari and asked, "O Asim! Tell me, if a man sees his wife with another man, should he kill him, whereupon you would kill him in Qisas, or what should he do? O Asim! Please ask Allah's Messenger about that." Asim asked Allah's Messenger about that. Allah's Apostle disliked that question and considered it disgraceful. What Asim heard from Allah's Messenger was hard on him. When he returned to his family, 'Uwaimir came to him and said "O Asim! What did Allah's Messenger say to you?" Asim said, "You never bring me any good. Allah's Messenger disliked hearing the problem which I asked him about." Uwaimir said: "By Allah, I will not leave the matter till I ask him about it." So Uwaimir proceeded till he came to Allah's Messenger who was in the midst of the people and said: "O Allah's Messenger! If a man finds with his wife another man, should he kill him, whereupon you would kill him (in Qisas): or otherwise, what should he do?" Allah's Messenger said: "Allah has revealed something concerning the question of you and your wife. Go and bring her here." So they both carried out the judgment of Lian, while I was present among the people (as a witness). When both of them had finished, Uwaimir said, "O Allah's Messenger! If I should now keep my wife with me, then I have told a lie". Then he pronounced his decision to divorce her thrice before Allah's Apostle ordered him to do so. (Ibn Shihab said, "That was the tradition for all those who are involved in a case of Lian." [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H185, here.] Another Hadith on same incident reveals that Uwaimir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had told truth and his wife had illicit sexual intercourse with another man: “Narrated Ibn Juraij: Ibn Shihab informed me of Lian and the tradition related to it, referring to the narration of Sahl bin Sa`d, the brother of Bani Sa`idi He said: "An Ansari man came to Allah's Messenger and said: 'O Allah's Apostle! If a man saw another man with his wife, should he kill him, or what should he do?' So Allah revealed concerning his affair what is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an about the affair of those involved in a case of Lian. The Prophet said: 'Allah has given His verdict regarding you and your wife.' So they carried out Lian in the mosque while I was present there. When they had finished, the man said: "O Allah's Messenger! If I should now keep her with me as a wife then I have told a lie about her. Then he divorced her thrice before Allah's Messenger ordered him, when they had finished the Lian process. So he divorced her in front of the Prophet." Ibn Shihab added: "After their case, it became a tradition that a couple involved in a case of Lian should be separated by divorce. That lady was pregnant then, and later on her son was called by his mother's name. The tradition concerning their inheritance was that she would be his heir and he would inherit of her property the share Allah had prescribed for him." Ibn Shihab said that Sahl bin Sa`d As'Saidi said that the Prophet said (in the above narration), "If that lady delivers a small red child like a lizard, then the lady has spoken the truth and the man was a liar, but if she delivers a child with black eyes and huge lips, then her husband has spoken the truth." Then she delivered it in the shape one would dislike (as it proves her guilty).” [Bukhari, B63, H229, here] This proves three Talaq were not one in time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Hadith-229 records Uwaimir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) divorced his wife after Li’an (i.e. mutually invoking curse of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this had not been done before him. Rather his act of issuing Talaq set a precedent and others followed his example in such cases. This establishes it became a norm for Li’an to end marriage via three Talaq after Li’an. And there is not a single Hadith which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said these three Talaq are to be counted as one. Wahhabi: I will be back in few minutes Brother. You can continue. Sunni: Earlier you quoted Hadith that Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaqs were one. Yet Hadith records Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) invalidate Nikkah in cases of such Talaq: “Mujahid said: I was with Ibn Abbas. A man came to him and said that he divorced his wife by three pronouncements. I kept silence and thought that he was going to restore het to him. He then said: A man goes and commits a foolish act and then says; ‘O Ibn Abbas! Allah has said: ‘And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out.’ Since you did not keep duty to Allah I do not find a way out for you. You disobeyed your Lord and your wife was separated from you. Allah has said ‘O Prophet! When you divorce women divorce them in the beginning of their waiting period.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2192, here.] In another Hadith recorded in Muwatta Imam Malik (rahimullah) Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) has issued same Fatwah that three Talaq or more invalidate Nikkah: “Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that a man said to Abdullah Ibn Abbas: ‘I have divorced my wife by saying I divorce you a hundred times. What do you think my situation is?’ Ibn Abbas said to him: ‘She was divorced from you by three pronouncements, and by the ninety-seven, you have mocked the ayat of Allah.’" [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B29, H1153, here.] Wahhabi: Wouldn’t that mean he gave Fatwah against the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Sunni: Why would you deduce that? Wahhabi: If prophetic Sunnah was contrary to his Fatwah then naturally it would be against Sunnah. Sunni: Brother I don’t know what and how you view Sahabah as but in my understanding a Sahabi would not knowingly give Fatwah against prophetic teaching. And in case of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he knew prophetic Sunnah of three divorces in one breath meaning three. Wahhabi: So what you make of his statement that in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaq were one? Sunni: Brother Sahabi understands prophetic Sunnah better then you and me. He understands his own statements better then you and me. And he issues judgments better then you and me. When these are true don’t you think his statement three Talaq was one is better understood by him then you? I want answer for this Brother. Wahhabi: Sahabi! Sunni: Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) himself contextualized his own general statement of three Talaq was one in specific context of virgin getting divorce. Are you all claiming to know prophetic Sunnah and meaning of statement of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) better then Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu)? Don’t forget Sahabi is better in knowledge of Sunnah and Taqwa then Wahhabi. [He didn’t say anything so I asked.] Can I continue with my final piece of evidence? Wahhabi: Yes but quickly. Sunni: Ahadith record Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) also judged three Talaqs in one breath to mean three Talaqs which invalidate Nikkah: “When Ibn Umar was asked about a man who divorced his wife when she was menstruating, he would say: ’If it is the first or second divorce, the Messenger of Allah would tell him to take her back and keep her until she has menstruated again and purified herself, then divorce her before having intercourse with her. But if it was three simultaneous divorces, then you have disobeyed Allah with regard to the way in which divorce should be conducted and your wife has become irrevocably divorced.’" [Ref: Sunan Nisa’i, B27, H3587, here.] There is little ambiguity in Hadith-189 but if you pay attention you will realize it also means the same: “Nafi said: When Ibn Umar was asked about person who had given three divorces, he said: "Would that you gave one or two divorces, for the Prophet ordered me to do so. If you give three divorces then she cannot be lawful for you until she has married another husband (and is divorced by him)." [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H189, here.] Wahhabi: Can you explain how Hadith-189 amounts to evidence for three Talaq in one sitting? It can also be three menstrual period Talaqs. Sunni: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked about three divorces in one breath. He said it would have been better if he had given one or two. If he had given one each at end of every menstrual period then why would Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) would make suggestion of one, or two, because then in his suggestion/advice there would be no benefit. If companion had given three Talaq in one go, in one sitting, in one breath, in an instant then his advice/suggestion would make sense because issuing three would end marriage but one or two would leave room to revoke Talaq. Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum. [He signed out.] Sunni: I have concluded my response now if you have anything to say you can have your say. [He had gone by this time so I got no response.] Episode Three – Three Talaq Is A Rejected Innovation And Nikkah Stands: Sunni: Salam Alaykum Brother. Wahhabi: Wa Alaykum Salam. Sunni: You want to add something or respond to something? Wahhabi: No not right now. You have caught me off guard. I will have to research on what you said. I have to say for now everything makes sense but your explanation does not fit with Ahadith of; every innovation is misguidance and Ahadith of; a matter which is not from Islam is rejected. Sunni: Can I respond to your point about Sunnah of Caliphs? Otherwise I will forget again. Wahhabi: Yeah! Respond to that point first. Sunni: Brother following is just a brief summary of what transpired. It may not be exactly as stated here because I will be adding our motives and objectives into this summary. Wahhabi: I don’t remember anything about our earlier discussion apart from that one point so you can make up what you like. Lolz. Sunni: Our entire discussion on subject of Talaq e Thalathah is safe with me; PalTalk audio and written exchanges, E-Mail, WhatsApp audio and written exchanges, all are safe with me. Eventually our discussion will feature, here. I am MuhammedAli. Smile. I won’t publish your name, email address, and other details. Wahhabi: I can’t check right now but will do. Definitely later. You will write all this and publish it? Sunni: Will do. Wahhabi: Good luck then Brother. Sunni: I have prepared discussion ten times longer then this. Smile. Wahhabi: OK! Brother can we get to Sunnah of Caliphs Hadith. Sunni: You said Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) ordered three Talaq being three and before his Caliphate it was one. Therefore you cannot accept three Talaq being three because his actions went against prophetic Sunnah. I responded saying even if this is the case; we are instructed in Hadith to follow Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs. So we have to obey rightly guided Caliph and deem three Talaq issued in one sitting as three. You then responded with; scholars said Hadith is being incorrectly interpreted and applied because scholars said Sunnah of Caliphs is those prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs apply as law. Therefore Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is not inclusive of their own Ijtihadat and innovative Sunnahs. End. You would agree something like that could have transpired? Wahhabi: You got my stance right and that’s all that really matters to me not the context. Sunni: I quote the Hadith: “It was said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah, you have delivered a speech of farewell, so enjoin something upon us.' He said: 'I urge you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if (your leader) is an Abyssinian slave. After I am gone, you will see great conflict. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah (i.e. Path) of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] Which scholars said Sunnah of Caliphs is referring to prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs make law? Wahhabi: Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahma-ullah) explained it in his Majmu al-Fatawah but I cannot recall precise reference. It shouldn’t matter because my understanding is just that. Sunni: I doubt it but let us continue. However you play Brother you loose at the end. If you agree that Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is referring to Ijtihadaat of rightly guided Caliphs then you will have to obey RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and accept Ijtihadi Sunnah of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). This translates to mean that you will have to accept three Talaq is three after Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged it to be so. If you hold to your position that Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is referring to those prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs make into law then you will have to accept and obey Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Implication of this is; Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) took prophetic teaching of three Talaq is three and made it law. With your interpretation of Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is about prophetic Sunnah you have refuted your very foundation of your position (i.e. in life time of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam three Talaq were one). Not surprisingly your indirect invalidation of your stance on Talaq e Thalathah is actually supported with evidence. And I have already provided proof of it earlier. Smiles. Wahhabi: Brother you’re wasting time because I already told you I will have to investigate everything. Why are you barking up the wrong tree? [First sign of anger building in him.] There was no need to put it [the statement of Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs] in context of Talaq Thalathah discussion. I wanted you to prove your assertion why Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is about innovations. If you can then prove how and why this statement is about innovations of Caliphs. Sunni: Brother that’s simple. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed the believers to adhere to his Sunnah. If a Jahil teaches you a prophetic Sunnah, or a common man, or an Aalim, or your brother, or your mother, or a rightly guided Caliph makes it a law, or an evil Caliph; will you say no I will not follow the prophetic Sunnah! Regardless of who teaches or makes prophetic Sunnah into law you will act according to it and accept it. Prophetic Sunnah will not be disputed or rejected by believers. Wahhabi: Why are you telling me this Brother? I am loosing my patience with your never ending responses. [He signed out.] Sunni: Sunnahs (i.e. practices) innovated via Ijtihad by Caliphs could have been challenged and rejected. Result of this would be strife in Ummah so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed us to follow their innovated practices (i.e. Sunnahs). Wahhabi: Brother how can they be allowed to innovate Sunnahs of their own when every innovation is misguidance? Sunni: Brother absolutely every innovation is not evil. Otherwise what will you do about Sahih Bukhari? Every innovation of a certain type is evil innovation and misguidance and it takes to hellfire. If you take prophetic statement absolutely literally then what will you make of prophetic statement: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] Note Hadith states any who introduces a SUNNAH IN ISLAM will earn equal reward to one who follows the good Sunnah introduced in Islam. So Ijtihadi innovations/Sunnahs introduced by Caliphs are not same as the prophetic Sunnahs. We interpret phrase Sunnahs of Caliphs in light of this Hadith. And we have proof Caliphs did introduce good innovations in Islam which they said are good/excellent innovation. I mean Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) saying Taraweeh of entire month, in Masjid, under single Qari, entire Quran recited is an excellent innovation. You follow his innovated Sunnah and we do too. Wahhabi: This Hadith [of good Sunnah in Islam] is about prophetic Sunnahs. Sunni: Brother how can I introduce a prophetic Sunnah in Islam and earn equal reward like the one who follows it? Isn’t prophetic Sunnah already part of Islam? And if I teach someone prophetic Sunnah have I introduced it in Islam? If answer to all is no then how this Hadith can refer to prophetic Sunnahs which are already part of Islam. This Hadith is about those Sunnahs which are not part of Islam but are made part of Islam and one who innovates a good Sunnah in Islam and those who follow the good innovative Sunnah will earn equal reward. In this context we have Taraweeh of entire month, under a single Qari, performed in Masjid and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) making all instances of three Talaq into three. He even removed exceptions of virgin girl Talaq being one and three Talaq of emphasis. And regarding Taraweeh of entire month … Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said it is an excellent innovation. Therefore Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs does not refer to prophetic Sunnahs but to innovative Ijtihadi good Sunnahs which rightly guided Caliphs introduced into Islam. Wahhabi: Brother this Hadith is actually referring to actions of companions. Contextually poor Bedouins came to Madinah and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encouraged companions to give Sadaqah to them. This statement is about a companion who had started off the process of giving Sadaqah and those who were encouraged by his actions to give Sadaqah. To tell them of their reward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] I don’t understand why you’re distorting this Hadith. It perfectly fits into context of historical event. Sunni: Let me ask you something very simple. Did the companion who started off process of giving Sadaqah and those who followed did they introduce Sadaqah in Islam: Or was it already part of Islam and they acted on it? Wahhabi: It was already part of Islam I believe. Sunni: Yes! Sadaqah was already part of Islam and the companion who started the ball rolling and those who followed his example did not introduce it in Islam. If something is already part of Islam then our action on it does not mean we have introduced it in Islam. It is common sense. Do you agree with this? Wahhabi: What other choice do I have Brother! I have already said it was part of Islam. Brother just make your point and don’t beat around the bush. [I had to go to attend my son so we continued in next meeting.] Sunni: You could have said Sadaqah was not part of Islam and companions by giving Sadaqah introduced a new practice in Islam. But that would be self defeating for you because this would prove that we Muslims can introduce things into Islam which were not already part of it on condition that they do not contradict spirit of Islam. You took the route that it was already part of Islam then my question to you is how does prophetic statement refer to the historical context? You will have to agree it doesn’t in fact you have previously said Sadaqah was already part of Islam. This is indirect admission that prophetic statement does not fit the historical context. And there is something else that does not fit the historical context and that is statement which followed it: “And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] Later part of Hadith has no connection with giving Sadaqah. Why should the first part of Hadith apply contextually to historical event and not this part. Did the companions introduce an evil Sunnah in Islam? If not and you reason no but he was just warning them if they did introduce evil practice in Islam they would be responsible like the one who starts it off. Precisely Brother this logic can also be applied to ”… good Sunnah in Islam …” part of Hadith also because we already know nothing was introduced in Islam by companions and Sadaqah was already part of Islam. Hence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was using the event to tell the companions; if you introduce some good Sunnah in Islam you will and those who follow will equally be rewarded for it. And this would prove that both parts, good Sunnah and evil Sunnah, both do not apply to historical events rather Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) used the event as an excuse to issue a teaching for benefit of Muslims. Wahhabi: This has gone on for so long that I actually forgot why we even discussed this Hadith. Sunni: We started discussion on this Hadith because I was proving that Sunnah of Khulafah Rashideen (i.e. rightly guided Caliphs) are innovated good Sunnahs and not prophetic Sunnahs. And I quoted this Hadith to argue that Sunnah of Caliphs is interpreted in light of; whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam. And I pointed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made distinction between his Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs by saying follow my Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs. Wahhabi: There are two reasons why I find your point of view hard to accept: i) You said: “Sunnahs (i.e. practices) innovated via Ijtihad by Caliphs could have been challenged and rejected. Result of this would be strife in Ummah so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed us to follow their innovated practices (i.e. Sunnahs).” Your justification is based on Qiyas. Evidence of Hadith saying the same would convince me. ii) The main reason is that you said Muslims can introduce innovations INTO Islam. Brother the right to legislate religion is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How can you say and believe Muslims can innovate into Islam good Sunnahs/Biddahs. If this was permissible there would be countless Islams. You’re opening the gate of misguidance and innovations wholesale. You’re very persuasive Shaytan I can give you that. I am beginning to loose my patience with you Brother. Sunni: OK! My best possible approximation is bothering you. Brother when you’re asked why Khanzir is prohibited in Islam by disbelievers. What do you say to them? Its dirty and filthy animal. Where did you get this answer from Quran or Sunnah? You have looked at its behaviour and gave best possible/likely reason due to which it was prohibited in Islam. When a Kafir enquires from you why isn’t woman allowed to marry four men like man is allowed four wives. What do you say? O the men wouldn’t know who is father of which child. Is this stated in Quran/Hadith or you have deduced best possible/likely reason why it has been prohibited? But in context of Hadith of follow my Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs I exercised liberty which everyone else does so and you’re hurting in your guts. Are the rules not same for you and me? When you deduce a best possible reason according to your own intellect and understanding of environment its all HALAL but I am Mujrim (i.e. criminal) if I did the same. Just to unhurt your guts. I take my statement and instead say; tough cookies mate. Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said you should follow his Sunnah and innovated Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs; and tough cookies. You don’t deserve WHY. Obey Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Wahhabi: Lolz. That wasn’t my main point Brother. Deal with the main point. Sunni: The right to legislate religion is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) told His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the following: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislated that any who introduces into Islam something which was not already part of it the innovator of good Sunnah and those who follow his good Sunnah all will get equal reward. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Lord of universe, the legislator of religion of Islam and maker of its rules has informed us and told us there is reward for introducing good Sunnahs into Islam. Who do you think; you’re challenging His authority and prohibiting what He permitted? Are you rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Have you elevated yourself to a status of Rabb/Ilah to abrogate and void religious injunctions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? There is no Ilah/Rabb beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you’re obliterated al-Batil. Wahhabi: The gate of Prophet-hood is closed and none can add, or alter, or abrogate any teaching of Islam. Wahi (i.e. revelation) has ceased and anyone who claims revelation is an al-Kadhab (i.e. the Liar) and a Dajjal (i.e. impostor). Are you opening the closed gate of Prophet-hood? Or are you saying revelation can be received by non-Prophets? How can you add to Islam without a Prophet and without revelation? You’re crazy in head for sure but not crazy enough to believe Wahi can be received by non-Prophets. By believing innovations in Islam are allowed and due to it by default you’re opening the closed gate of Prophet-hood and claiming Wahi is sent to one who innovates a good Sunnah in Islam. This leads to conclusion you’re actually claiming those who innovated in Islam are Prophets. Shia indirectly ascribed Prophet-hood to their Imams and you Barelwis are their brothers and you’re no better. You’ve indirectly ascribed Prophet-hood to innovators. [Hold your rage until tomorrow. Lolz. He signed out.] Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum. I am here for about an hour and half then I will have to go. You can continue from where I left off. Sunni: Wa Alaykum salam. Brother Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught this principle: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] And despite this Hadith fact is Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last Prophet after him no Prophet will be born and then sent as a Prophet/Messenger. Wahi is only received by Prophets and no non-Prophet person receives Wahi from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When all this and Hadith of good Sunnah is true then natural conclusion should be and must be that introduction of good Sunnah in Islam does not require birth of another Prophet after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and does not require coming of Wahi from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) via Jibraeel (alayhis salam). Wahhabi: You’re *uc*ing pissing me off. How else something can be part of Islam then you senseless moron? Sunni: Khabeeth if you can’t take Islam destroying your evill innovation then just quit. Otherwise stop using profanity. Wahhabi: Brother you know what you’re saying is outrageous. Who do you think will not react to what you’re saying? Sunni: A Deen educated Muslim will not react but would fully agree with me. If you’re not understanding something just wait. Do you think I am an idiot? This far I have substantiated everything I have claimed and I will explain how innovated good Sunnahs can be made part of Islam without claim of Prophet-hood and without need of Wahi. Wahhabi: OK! Go on then Brother. The suspense is killing me. Sunni: Your objection to Hadith stems from your misunderstanding about Islam. The Hadith says, reward is for good Sunnahs introduced in Islam, and you assume these good Sunnahs are made part of core of Islam, the fundamental Islam; which was revealed via Wahi to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Innovated good Sunnah cannot be part of core/fundamental Islam which was revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because condition for being part of that is Wahi and Nabuwah. Wahhabi: Exactly that’s what I am saying Brother. Sunni: There are two Islams: i) Fundamental Islam/Core Islam - of Wahi and Nabi/Rasool, ii) Ijtihadi Islam – not revealed as part of Wahi but derived from Core Islam. Wahhabi: Can you give an example of each so I can grasp it better? Sunni: Fundamental Islam is Islam which is Quran and Tafsir of Quran known to us as prophetic Sunnah. An example of Ijtihadi Islam would be; Books of Hadith, or Taraweeh. Sahih Bukhari composed of prophetic Sunnahs. It is composed of Core Islam but Sahih Bukhari itself is not part of Core Islam. There is no verse or Hadith in which it is stated read Sahih Bukhari therefore it is not part of core Islam but it is composed of it. Wahhabi: I still don’t see why Bukhari would be considered part of Islam and as a good Sunnah in Islam. To be honest with you; you’re confusing me Brother Ali. Sunni: Is Sahih Bukhari an Islamic book? Wahhabi: If it wasn’t Islamic then why would it be so widely read. Sunni: Is it Islamic or un-Islamic? Wahhabi: Islamic! Sunni: Is there a verse in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or a Hadith in which Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said read Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim … to learn religion of Islam? Wahhabi: No! Sunni: Is Surah Ikhlas a Islamic Surah or un-Islamic? Wahhabi: Brother what are you going on about? Do you really need my answers on these? Sunni: Brother Sami’ullah can you just go along and answer the stupid questions. Wahhabi: It is Islamic! Now can you make your point. Sunni: Brother point is Surah Ikhlas is part of core Islam revealed via Wahi and you said it is ISLAMIC. Meaning you judged it to be part of Islam. With regards to Sahih Bukhari you also said it is Islamic but it is not revealed rather Imam Bukhari strived hard. His Ijtihad which resulted Sahih Bukhari you have termed ISLAMIC. Even though it was not revealed via Wahi. Point I am making is that alif can be said to be part of Islam in sense of Prophet/Messenger receiving revelation. And noon can be said to be part of Islam even though it is Ijtihad of a righteous Muslim. This establishes in our understanding there are two ways in which something can be made part of Islam: i) Via Wahi to a Prophet/Messenger, ii) Via Ijtihad of Mujtahid when his Ijtihad is supported by what was revealed via Wahi. Wahhabi: If I got it right then you’re saying; good innovation is not part of revealed Islam but innovation is connected via umbilical cord with revealed Islam therefore it is judged to be part of Islam. Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] He did not mean to say; whoever introduces a good Sunnah in core Islam … He was actually talking about Ijtihadi innovative good Sunnahs made part of Islam because their justification is from core Islam. These good innovated Sunnahs are made up of matters which were revealed in core Islam. We have Taraweeh as example of this. Three day in leadership of a Qari in Masjid was Sunnah but entire month, in Masjid, under leadership of Qari was not part of core Islam but its foundation (i.e. Asl) is from core Islam therefore it is judged part of Islam. End. [About umbillical cord comment I said:] I couldn’t have phrased it better myself brother. Wahhabi: What is the umbillical cord that connects them then? Sunni: Umbilical cord in good innovation would be teaching of Quran/Sunnah. Wahhabi: I made the connection but I lost it again. Lolz. Sunni: OK! I am about to give a example by creating a good innovation. It might help. Call this innovation, Dua Namaz, and it involves reciting after every Salah; Surah Fatihah x3, Surah Ikhlas x3, Surah al-Kauthar x3 and then supplicating Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Surah Fatihah, Surah Ikhlas, Surah al-Kauthar, and Dua; all serve as umbillical cord between Quran/Sunnah and Dua Namaz. Wahhabi: OK! I am totally confused now. How can the umbillical cord also be same as the innovation itself? Sunni: Umbilical cord is; Surah Fatihah, Surah Ikhlas, Surah al-Kauthar and Dua. Dua Namaz is; Surah Fatihah x3, Surah Ikhlas x3, Surah al-Kauthar x3 and Dua at the end of Salah. Note specific repetition of three for each mentioned Surah and then Dua after each Salah is not part of Islam but each in their own right is part of core of Islam. Visual example would be imagine big sign board with neon lights in big writing it says Dua Namaz and in smaller writing; i) Surah Fatihah x3, ii) Surah Ikhlas x3, iii) Surah al-Kauthar x3, iv) and Dua. Now imagine a giant book labelled, Islam, and from this giant book four electrical cables are connected to and powering each of four. In other words revealed Islam, core Islam, is powering Dua Namaz but it is not Dua Namaz. Wahhabi: Allah Hafiz. Until we meet again. Salam Alayqum. Sunni: This proves innovated good Sunnah can be deemed as part of Islam if they are derived from core Islam. And Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs are innovated good Sunnahs which are deemed to be part of Islam because they emerge from core Islam. Same principle applies to Mawlid, Khatam, Geeyarweenh … These itself are not part of core Islam but are derived from various teaching of core Islam therefore are deemed as being part of Islam. Wahhabi: I have to go. Brother it is work time I need to get ready and go. Salam Alaykum. [He signed out. I had to finish the train of thought so I E-Mailed the following to him.] Sunni: Well I have actually finished my response on subject of Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs and I believe I have convincingly responded to all of your points. So I will sum up the over-all point. You argued Talaq Thalathah was legalized and made effective as three during Khilafat of and by Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). I responded saying we are under instruction to follow Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs. And I explained that Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs if it instructs us to follow innovated Sunnah of a Caliph then prophetic instruction is binding upon us therefore three Talaq in one breath is three. If Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs prophetic Sunnah which a Caliph implements as law then it means Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) implemented prophetic Sunnah of three Talaqs meaning three. We also discussed meaning of introducing good Sunnah in Islam and it was established good Sunnah in Islam can only be an innovation which was not already part of Islam but is made part of Islam. We also debated on if we incorporate innovated good Sunnah into [core] Islam revealed via Wahi to a Nabi/Rasool. It was established that innovated good Sunnah is made part of Islam because it incorporates and becomes a whole by borrowing Quranic and prophetic teachings. In other words innovated good Sunnah in Islam is amalgamation of Quranic, or prophetic Sunnahs, or combination of both. Three Talaq issued in an instant even if it is an innovation and Ijtihad of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) it has a precedent from prophetic Sunnah. Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) looked at prophetic precedent where he counted three Talaq in an instant as three and made judgement that from now on all three Talaqs without exception will be counted as three. This is principally no different from Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) taking three day practice of Taraweeh under a Qari in Masjid and legalized it for entire month of Ramadhan. In three Talaq case he legalized it for every instance of three Talaq and in case of Taraweeh he legalized three day practice of Taraweeh for entire month. Principally he did exactly the same in both places. Taraweeh is accepted by you because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t object and three Talaq being counted as three in every case is objected/disbelieved by you because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah has objected/disbelieved and understood Deen of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) better then Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). End. I am sorry but I am not done yet. I levelled the charge at you/your Wahhabi-kind that by you prohibiting innovative good Sunnahs in Islam you’re all indirectly elevating yourself as lords/gods against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Because the right to legislate religion and make Halal and Haram is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by prohibiting what He has legalized you’re indirectly and unjustly claiming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. So in return you levelled charge that I/We are claiming/attributing prophet-hood for those who introduced good innovations into Islam. End. Even before your accusation I had proven to you that Islam allows good Sunnahs to be introduced into Islam. What remained was your misunderstanding about how an innovation can be made part of Islam. You thought we believe innovation is made part of core-Islam the Islam revealed via Wahi to a Nabi/Rasool. I had established this is definitely not the case. Instead we mean something which is derived from Quran/Sunnah and which linguistically is said to be Islamic because it is derived from it like we say Sahih al-Bukhari is Islamic book; or it is said Bukhari is part of Islam. So I refuted your charge and logically and scripturally established my belief and understanding why we cannot be accused of opening closed gate of Wahi; or accused of ascribing prophet-hood to scholars. This brings me to what I expect from you in our next meeting. I want you to respond to my allegation and justify why you’re not setting your self as a rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by prohibiting what He has allowed and attempting to void His teaching. On second thought I am going to tone that down. I want you to prove/reason why you’re not exercising right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by prohibiting innovative good Sunnahs in Islam which He has allowed. [End of E-Mail.] Wahhabi: You can accuse me of what you like. I don’t care. I need to address the real issue. Sunni: Brother this discussion will be posted online just make note of that. Wahhabi: More of a reason to respond to real issue. How sneaky are you! You have me tangled in other subjects but yourself you respond to everything. On top of that you’re dictating what I need to respond to. GTFOH! [I believe he just cursed again.] Sunni: As you wish but don’t cry later on. Final Episode – Three Talaq Is An Innovation And Every Innovation Is Misguidance: Wahhabi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said every innovation is misguidance: “And he would join his forefinger and middle finger; and would further say: ‘The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is error.’" [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885, here.] Three Talaq in one sitting is an innovation regarding which you will not even disagree. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: ‘If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861, here] Three Talaq in one sitting clearly goes against Quranic and prophetic teaching. I want to see how do you reconcile three Talaq in one sitting being an [evil] innovation and but yet accepted. Sunni: I agree three Talaq issued; in one instance, in one sitting, in one breath, in one instance is a rejected [evil] misguided innovation. The real issue is that does this rejected innovative three Talaq invalidate Nikkah? Wahhabi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said innovation is rejected then how can we accept it and invalidate Nikkah? Sunni: Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) a companion and an Aalim, a Mujtahid agreed that it is rebellion against instruction of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and a sinful action but it invalidated marriage despite this: “When Ibn Umar was asked about a man who divorced his wife when she was menstruating, he would say: ’If it is the first or second divorce, the Messenger of Allah would tell him to take her back and keep her until she has menstruated again and purified herself, then divorce her before having intercourse with her. But if it was three simultaneous divorces, then you have disobeyed Allah with regard to the way in which divorce should be conducted and your wife has become irrevocably divorced.’" [Ref: Sunan Nisa’i, B27, H3587, here.] “Nafi said: When Ibn Umar was asked about person who had given three divorces, he said: "Would that you gave one or two divorces, for the Prophet ordered me to do so. If you give three divorces then she cannot be lawful for you until she has married another husband (and is divorced by him)." [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H189, here.] “Mujahid said: I was with Ibn Abbas. A man came to him and said that he divorced his wife by three pronouncements. I kept silence and thought that he was going to restore het to him. He then said: A man goes and commits a foolish act and then says; ‘O Ibn Abbas! Allah has said: ‘And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out.’ Since you did not keep duty to Allah I do not find a way out for you. You disobeyed your Lord and your wife was separated from you. Allah has said ‘O Prophet! When you divorce women divorce them in the beginning of their waiting period.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2192, here.] “The Prophet said: 'Allah has given His verdict regarding you and your wife.' So they carried out Lian in the mosque while I was present there. When they had finished, the man said: "O Allah's Messenger! If I should now keep her with me as a wife then I have told a lie about her. Then he divorced her thrice before Allah's Messenger ordered him, when they had finished the Lian process. So he divorced her in front of the Prophet." Ibn Shihab added: "After their case, it became a tradition that a couple involved in a case of Lian should be separated by divorce. … prescribed for him." Ibn Shihab said that Sahl bin Sa`d As'Saidi said that the Prophet said (in the above narration), "If that lady delivers a small red child like a lizard, then the lady has spoken the truth and the man was a liar, but if she delivers a child with black eyes and huge lips, then her husband has spoken the truth." Then she delivered it in the shape one would dislike (as it proves her guilty).” [Bukhari, B63, H229, here] “Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that a man said to Abdullah Ibn Abbas: ‘I have divorced my wife by saying I divorce you a hundred times. What do you think my situation is?’ Ibn Abbas said to him: ‘She was divorced from you by three pronouncements, and by the ninety-seven, you have mocked the ayat of Allah.’" [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B29, H1153, here.] They judged all gave these verdicts because in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaqs issued in one breath were deemed to be three [except in case of virgin getting three Talaqs in one breath] and a companion narrates this fact: “Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Enlighten us with your information whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr. He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of Umar people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single breath as one).” [Ref: Sahih Muslim, B9, H3493, here.] This is same companion whom you quoted to justify three Talaq were actually one during life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Khilafat of Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and during first period of Khilafat of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): In this Hadith he has flatly and categorically refuted your claim of three Talaq were one in this period. In fact Ahadith explain only three Talaq which was one during that period was three Talaq issued to a virgin. And in Khilafat of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he even revoked that and made this even three. Wahhabi: Brother if one Hadith states it is one and then other says it was not this proves there is contradiction in Ahadith. I told you I will have to research your evidences and then I will answer you. Sunni: Brother you have had long enough time prepare and respond. You’re using that just as an excuse to avoid responding to evidence. Why are you continuing to discuss when truth of this evidence can sort dispute? Don’t you think it is more important to investigate them first? Wahhabi: I can trust you or what you quote from websites. Barelwis are Mushriks and they cannot be trusted. You people have introduced so many forms of innovative worships like Khatams, Geeyarweenh, Chaliswan, Teeja, and countless other innovations. You acting on another innovation won’t add much weight to your sins nor dent your reputation in anyway. I know you’re lying. I bet you these Ahadith which you’re quoting only exist in Barelwi-fied books of Ahadith. Sunni: Brother you’re so blind to truth if it hit you in face danced in front of you screaming I am truth you will completely blind to it. You said Sunnis are Mushrikeen and Sunnis have innovated acts of worship and we introduced innovations. Brother you don’t know how to determine innovation, worship, and you definitely don’t know our beliefs and practices to make a/any judgment so stop making tall claims and don’t hurt your hereafter. Wahhabi: Are you taking the p**s? lolz. If we Ahle Hadith don’t know what Ibadah is and what Biddah then who else is suppose to know. We are people of Quran and Hadith. Your sect derives their understanding and Islam from books of Fiqha instead of Quran/Sunnah. So if anyone doesn’t know what Islamic teaching of Biddah and Ibadah are then it’s your sect. Proof is in the pudding. You Barelwis are disgusting people because you worship graves and introduced innovations. We we only follow Quran/Sunnah and have not introduced a single innovation. No one from us worships any grave, or tree, or Pir, or anyone else. And you think we don’t know what Biddah is and what Ibadah is? Are you high or something! I dare you to test me. Sunni: Tall claims from short man. Claim of guidance from a Mubtadi (i.e. innovator). Wahhabi: GTFOH! You know I would crush you. Go on ask me a question then you MORON. Sunni: Stop swearing! I have been very civil with you. Wahhabi: Moron means stupid person. I just said the truth. Are you going to test me or not? Sunni: Read what I ask you carefully. Wahhabi: You’re not asking me question about quantum mechanics so it can’t be hard. Just ask. Sunni: It begins. As a principle any ritual-act which has not been sanctioned as ritual-act of worship in two primary sources even though individual or great multitude of people may define as worship is not worship. It is an innovation and is to be rejected. How can those who have innovated their own ways to worship their gods be guilty of worshiping their gods when their methods of worship are innovations? How can they be judged as worshippers of idols/gods? Wahhabi: What the hell would they be if not Mushrikeen for worshipping their false gods! Sunni: OK! I will try to be clearer. Wahhabi: OK! Sunni: We both agree issuance of three Talaq in an instant is an innovation. We both agree ritual-acts of polytheists such as Hindus, or worshippers of Satan are acting on innovations. You agree? Wahhabi: Yeah! Sunni: On issue of innovative three Talaq you say marriage contract is intact. When a Hindus performs ritual-acts for their idol/gods to worship them you say this innovated act is ritual-act of worship of an idol and proof of their Shirk. Also when a Jahil Muslim prostrates to a grave, or performs Tawaf around a grave; you charge them of engaging in Shirk; even though you acknowledge their action is an innovation. If innovation is rejected and rejected three Talaq keeps Nikkah intact then how does rejected [misguiding] innovation invalidate Islam of Muslim for an alleged act of Shirk? And how does rejected [misguiding] innovation result in Hindu being guilty of worshiping his idol god? Wahhabi: Hindu takes idol as his god so he is guilty of Shirk anyway. Sunni: I didn’t say he isn’t I asked is he guilty of worshiping idol-god due to his innovated acts of worship with which he worships his idol? Secondly a Muslim who doesn’t profess Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for anyone and you merely on basis of some actions judge them to be Mushrik would he be Mushrik and guilty of worshiping creation on account of his innovation? Wahhabi: You’ve turned out to be bigger MORON then I thought you were. You’re being even more stupid then typical Barelwi Mushrikeen. Sunni: Why are you getting abusive Brother? I am only testing your knowledge of Ibadah and Biddah. Wahhabi: You call this testing my knowledge. You’re supporting and defending Shirk with this. You want me to acknowledge Shirk is not offensive in Shari’ah. You’re enemy of religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Sunni: I am not supporting Shirk. I am merely trying to establish you’re a nobody who has no knowledge of Quran/Sunnah. Wahhabi: Moron! Ask me another question. I do not want to answer this question and become a party indirectly supporting Shirk. Sunni: Question was and is – if rejected innovation doesn’t invalidate Nikkah then how rejection can innovation invalidates Islam of a Muslim. And how can a Hindu be guilty of worshiping an idol due to his rejected innovation? Let me spell this out: You have two choices: i) Innovated three divorces end marriage despite being innovation just as innovated acts of worship dedicated to idols amount to worship and end belief in Islam. ii) Or alternatively hold to position that three Talaq in one instant does not end marriage contract because it is innovation and also profess ritual-acts performed by polytheists as token of worship are not worship because these are innovations. You cannot and should not be inconsistent. Innovation in one place is good enough to invalidate belief in Islam. And then same innovation in another incident isn’t good enough to end marriage. Why this contradiction? Wahhabi: Do you know what you’re saying moron? It sounds like you have bloody lost your mind. Sunni: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah is consistent in methodology; we hold to position that innovative ritual-acts of worship performed by Mushrikeen are acts of worship and proof of Shirk. If a Muslim was to perform these innovated ritual-acts after affirming Ilahiyyah/Ma’budiyyah to worship an idol, grave, tree, Wali, Nabi with belief and intention of worship then his belief in Islam be void. And this is no different from judgment that innovative three Talaq in an instant voids marriage contract. Wahhabi: Talaq is an innovation which does not invalidate belief in Islam so how can I charge someone of Kufr/Shirk. Are you stupid or something? Worshipping Ghayrullah is an innovation which does invalidate belief in Tawheed because of which we charge you Mushrikeen of Kufr/Shirk. Sunni: Brother you’re missing the point. When you believe innovation is rejected and cannot be accepted then even if it is innovation misguidance, or innovation Kufr/Shirk, it is rejected. And as par your rule such innovation should not be used to invalidate belief in Islam. Wahhabi: You’re ***cking stupid. I can’t believe you are introducing doubts in matters which are clear cut Kufr/Shirk. You’re agent of Shaytan. I am not discussing with you. Dumb-donkey you will only ruin my Eman. You’re Mushrik, a filthy Kafir. You deserve to be killed as an apostate. D**kh**d hope you rot in hell. You S.O.B. [He signed out.] Sunni: What triggered you! I am sorry Brother if I was hitting too hard but seriously you didn’t have to scream this loud in pain. Ouch! Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum. Can you unblock me on WhatsApp? [Via E-Email he requested I unblock him. I unblocked him.] Sunni: Salam Alaykum. Wahhabi: Wa Alaykum Salam. I misunderstood your intent so I just want to apologize. I thought you were insinuating Shirk isn’t Shirk because it is innovation. Sunni: Was that all or is there anything else? Wahhabi: I was intending to respond to something’s if you’re interested. Sunni: Don’t have too much hopes of response from me. If you write something worthy of responding to me will via E-Mail. Wahhabi: Would you be interested in an exchange on subject of Ilm ul-Ghayb? Forget Ilm al-Ghayb topic just refute or explain my evidence so it does not contradict with your position. That was your own principle. Sunni: You’re not getting respect of exchanging knowledge [on subject of Ilm al-Ghayb] with me twice. Wahhabi: Lolz. I have apologized Brother Ali. I felt really bad afterwards. Sunni: Truth is Brother you started abusing me because you could not meet academic challenge. Nor you could live with truth of Islam destroying your office of legalizing illicit Nikkah bureau. Your Khariji kind has always resorted to threats to life, killing, abusing, and making Takfir of Muslims. You are no different. The best I could do for you were to attempt to educate you about prophetic teaching and I have done that. Best you could do was abuse, insult me and you have done that throughout this discussion. I tolerated it because of my intention was for your betterment and best for my hereafter. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is best of planners. Truth came it conquered and exposed the weakness of Kufr. Nothing from your argument silenced me except your abuse. You should consider abusive tirades as your strongest argument. Salam Alaykum. [I blocked him after this message.] Polytheist Insults Revelation Of Quran And Prophet Muhammad: A Mushrik said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) repeats magical stories of pre-Islam era and what he claims is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in reality is invention of human/creation. So he belittled revelation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and insinuated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is guilty of lies and deception. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with eight other qualities mentions two in following verse: “Cruel, moreover, and an illegitimate pretender.” [Ref: 68:13] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reveals insulter of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is illegitimate. Why am I telling you this? What connection does it have with the subject? Ghayr-Muqallideen Scholarship Directly/Indirectly Insulting: Trait of Khawarij and certainly of Wahhabis is that they are directly and indirectly in insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Authors of insulting statements are guilty of direct insult of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi in his books Taqwiyat ul-Iman and Sirat e Mustaqeem clearly and knowingly authored statements which were insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in guise of championing Tawheed. And an example of indirect would be using insulting statements written by Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi and defending such statements arguing/believing there is nothing wrong with them. Vast majority of Ghayr-Muqallideen are guilty of indirect insult/disrespect. Irrespective of direct/indirect involvement reality is both sides are insulting and argue in defence of their insults. Apples Of Then And Now Not Falling Far From Tree: Wahhabi Ghayr-Muqallideen do not believe three Talaq in one sitting amounts to end of marriage. Consequently when such incident occurs Wahhabi keeps his illicit relationship with his ex-wife. Any children born after three Talaq technically are illegitimate. These Ghayr-Muqallideen insulters/Gustakh choosing three Talaq not ending marriage is quite telling about their inner state. Quranic verses points to an illegitimate person choosing path of insult and in context of Ghayr-Muqallideen we have insulters choosing path illegitimacy. An apple doesn’t fall far from tree. Conclusion: Ghayr-Muqallideen of Pakistan believe all-three Talaq delivered in one breath, in one sitting, in an instant are one. Yet it was established from Ahadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legitimized end of marriages when such incidents took place. The only true exception exercised by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) – where three Talaq intentioned three became one – was in case of virgin woman getting such Talaq. He made such Talaq as one and which Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) even revoked during his Khilafat. And we are commanded to follow Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs. Evidence employed by Ghayr-Muqallideen is of a companion divorcing his wife three times and he was asked how many Talaq he intentioned he said just one. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made him take oath and returned his wife to him. Ahadith establish Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and everyone else judged three Talaq to be three and invalidate Nikkah due to it. Other Wahhabi argument is that three Talaq in one sitting is an evil misguiding innovation hence it cannot be used to judge validity of Nikkah because it was supposed to be rejected. My response to Wahhabi was Istighathah according to you is an evil misguiding Shirki innovation yet you invalidate Tawheed and Islam of Muslims due to it. Why misguiding innovation should be employed in one instance to invalidate Islam/Tawheed but not to invalidate Nikkah. If innovation was rejected in meaning that it cannot be used to make a judgment then in both cases it should be rejected similarly. And even though three Talaq in one sitting is a misguiding innovation but despite this Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), rightly guided Caliph invalidated Nikkah. This difference between Sahabis and Wahhabis is because Sahabis understood what innovation is; how it is to be rejected; but same cannot be said about Wahhabis. Evil innovation is rejected in hereafter by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and innovator will not get reward for it. It is also to be rejected by Muslims because it should not be acted/believed instead we Muslims should act/believe in teaching of Quran/Sunnah. Rejection of misguiding innovation does not require that we reject it absolutely. Evil innovation is accepted as evidence; and judgment based on it is valid and accepted. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: Jurists of Hanafiyyah, Malikiyyah, Shafiyyah, and Hanabilah were/are unanimously agreed upon three Talaq issued in one sitting (in other words issued in one go) were three Talaq. And this Talaq would end marriage contract. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah started evil innovation of three, or more Talaq in one go would amount to one Talaq in every situation and two more are required to end marriage. Tiny minority who ascribe to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s pseudo Hanbalism ascribes to his understanding. In subcontinent under guise of holding to Quran/Sunnah Ghayr-Muqallids rebirthed this evil innovation. Background To How It All Started: A Ghayr-Muqallid Wahhabi read one of my articles on topic of Biddah on SalafiAqeedah, here. After some search and help he managed to find me on IslamiMehfil. He said he did not agree with the content of article but he was impressed with my strict reliance on evidence of Quran/Ahadith to support position of Ahlus Sunnah without referring to Islamic scholarship. He enquired about any further reading material on subject of innovation and I then directed him to English section of IslamiMehfil forum and urged him to read. It was roughly a week later he contacted me and expressed his desire to discuss subject of Talaq Thalathah (i.e. Three Talaq), Rafa ul-Yadain (i.e. raising of hands), and Fatihah Khalf ul-Imam (i.e. reciting Fatihah when being lead by an Imam). He was under impression that my strict reliance and usage of Quran/Ahadith as evidence would work in his favour. By presenting evidences of Quran/Ahadith on these disputed subjects he would succeed in converting me to Wahhabism. During my discussion on subject of Talaq e Thalathah it became evident he thought of me an idiot with zero knowledge. He had no idea what and who he wanted to wrestle with. Smile. I obliged on condition that I will take charge and attempt to prove position of Ahlus Sunnah and it would be his responsibility to explain evidence of Ahlus Sunnah so it is in accordance with his position. If I fail to prove our stance within reasonable time frame he would be allowed to present his case. Despite the agreement Wahhabi Brother did not play ball and discussion developed in a way that I had no control over it but in the end discussion came togather in favour of Ahlus Sunnah. We agreed to discuss the subjects in the order which Wahhabi brother purposed and being totally ill-prepared for all I had to take crash course on Talaq e Thalathah. I had to read following three books within few days here, here, and here, to get up to speed with the topics. Episode One – The Day Of Wahhabism And Promise Of Return: Wahhabi: What is your belief regarding triple Talaq in one sitting? Sunni: Procedure of Talaq is clearly taught in book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and explained in Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). One Talaq is to be issued at the end of each menstrual cycle. If done correctly from beginning to end three Talaq should be issued in three months with one key condition that there should be no sexual intercourse in these three periods. This would effectively end marriage contract. If someone deviates from Quranic method of divorce; issues three Talaq in one instance, or three Talaq in three minutes, or in three hours, or in three days, or in three weeks; such a person has committed a major sin and has acted on an evil innovation. Regardless of its Biddah status it would result in end of marriage because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated divorce is twice and third time if she is divorced then she cannot marry her ex-husband until she has married another man: “Divorce is twice. Then either keep (her) in an acceptable manner or release with good treatment. And it is not lawful … And afterward if he has divorced her (third time) then she is not lawful to him until she marries a husband other than him.” [Ref: 2:229/230] Nature of Quran is Jawami al-Kalim and therefore it has widest possible interpretation scope: “I heard Allah's Messenger saying: "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim … Muhammad said Jawami al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet.” [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141, here.] Coming back to the verse of Quran. It is explicit in stating divorce is twice during which marriage can be reconciled after third there is no returning. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not specify that this Hukm of divorce is for one who adheres to three menstrual cycles divorce method. This is example of Hukm Mutliq which is inclusive of all and excludes none. Meaning all types of three Talaq are to be deemed three and end marriage as per verse of Quran. This interpretation agrees with Jawami al-Kalim nature of Quran. Wahhabi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hates divorce according to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but has allowed it despite it: “It was narrated from Abdullah bin Umar that: The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The most hated of permissible things to Allah is divorce.’" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B10, H2018, here.] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told us Iblees is pleased with those Satan’s who manage to cause rift between husband/wife leading to divorce: “Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger said: ‘Iblis places his throne upon water; he then sends detachments (for creating dissension); the nearer to him in rank are those who are most notorious in creating dissension. One of them comes and says: ‘I did so and so.’ And he says: ‘You have done nothing.’ Then one amongst them comes and says: ‘I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between a husband and a wife.’ The Satan goes near him and says: ‘You have done well.’ Amash said: He then embraces him.” [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6755, here.] An agent of Iblees incites a man to issue Talaq and instead of opposing this agent of Iblees Hanafis sides with him and issue judgment that Nikkah has been invalidated even when they can make exception. Instead of opposing Satan you’re actually helping his agent to achieve his objective. Our Minhaj opposes Iblees, his agents, and their Hanafi agents. Sunni: You didn’t actually respond to what I wrote instead you kind of took your own path. We won’t get anywhere if this continues. Secondly you should think through about what you write before you write because there can be significant consequences. Wahhabi: What consequences you’re on about? I said you’re being Iblees’s agent’s agent by nullifying marriage due to triple Talaq. How have I said something wrong? Sunni: Hadith: “’Then one amongst them comes and says: ‘I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between a husband and a wife.’ The Satan goes near him and says: ‘You have done well.’ Amash said: He then embraces him.” [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6755, here.] This Hadith is not specific about three Talaq in one sitting. Rather it is inclusive of; i) Talaq Ahsan, ii) Talaq Hasan, iii) and Talaq Biddah – which is three or more Talaq in one sitting. It makes no Takhsees between these three. Natural meaning of Hadith is any who divorces his wife, via any of three methods Satan has conspired against the couple and incited husband to issue Talaq. There are incidents in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) invalidated Nikkah/marriages after Ahsan/Hasan three Talaqs are you willing to say he was supporting agent of Iblees in his verdicts? If not then why would you say Fuqaha of Ahnaf are behaving as agents of Iblees? You know every divorce is work of a Satan destroying marriage so technically every Qadhi giving verdict that Talaq Ahsan, Hasan, Biddah is effective is in your logic actually behaving as an agent of Iblees. Objective of Qadhi/Mufti is to uphold the law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he issues judgment in light of it not in light of wish of Iblees and his agents. Wahhabi: I didn’t say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or every Qadhi is behaving as such. You’re just clutching straws. Sunni: First of all I didn’t say you said that. I spelt out if your logic; any who issues verdict on three Talaq in sitting ends marriages is behaving as an agent of Iblees; is invalid. Then logic of, behaving as an agent of Iblees, should also apply on Talaq Ahsan and Hasan because Hadith does not make exception for any of three types of Talaqs. Only you have specifically applied the Hadith to Talaq Biddah but reality is this Hadith is about all three types of Talaq i.e. Ahsan, Hasan, Biddah. So this rationale of yours is also applicable to Talaq Ahsan and Talaq Hasan. Therefore whenever a Qadhi issues judgment about any Talaq type saying; this Talaq is now in effect and marriage is ended; technically as par your logic he is doing bidding of Iblees. In my previous message I kind of demonstrated how your logic; invalidating marriage after three Talaq in one sitting is work of agent of Iblees; is completely out of touch of reality. And I told you Qadhi issues judgment to uphold law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Qadhi is under any blame for upholding law even if his judgment achieves objective of Iblees and his minions. Instead of thanking me for correcting your misguided notion you’re accusing I am clutching at straws. Wahhabi: Never mind you won’t understand. The real issue is; three Talaq in one sitting is a Biddah and you even said it is Biddah. Sunni: Yes it is Biddah but it does not give you free license to give million Talaq to your wife in one sitting. Giving verdict three or more Talaq in one sitting does not invalidate marriage only allows this Biddah to remain active. Only way this Biddah can be eradicated if we all give same verdict; it ends Nikkah. We Ahlus Sunnah punish this evil Biddah in accordance with prophetic teaching and his companions. Wahhabi: Three Talaq is an innovation therefore Talaq is a rejected form of Talaq. During the life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaqs issued in one sitting were deemed to be just one. Sunni: Your proof is? Wahhabi: Hadith records three Talaq in one sitting became effectively three Talaq in Caliphate of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and they were not deemed three during life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and first Caliph Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). We want to revert to Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Sunni: I asked for evidence. Wahhabi: “Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Abd Yazid the father of Rukanah and his brothers divorced Umm Rukanah and married a woman of the tribe of Muzaynah. She went to the Prophet and said: He is of no use to me except that he is as useful to me as a hair; and she took a hair from her head. So separate me from him. The Prophet became furious. He called on Rukanah and his brothers. He then said to those who were sitting beside him. Do you see so-and-so who resembles Abdu Yazid in respect of so-and-so; and so-and-so who resembles him in respect of so-and-so? They replied: Yes. The Prophet said to Abdu Yazid: Divorce her (the wife from Banu Muzaynah). Then he did so. He said: Take your wife the mother of Rukanah and his brothers, back in marriage. He said: I have divorced her by three pronouncements, Messenger of Allah. He said: I know: Take her back. He then recited the verse: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their appointed periods." Abu Dawud said: The tradition narrated by Nafi b. Ujair and Abd Allah b. Yazid b. Rukanah from his father on the authority of his grandfather reads: Rukanah divorced his wife absolutely (i.e. irrevocable divorce). The Prophet restored her to him. This version is sounder (than other versions), for they (i.e. these narrators) are the children of this man, and the members of the family are more aware of his case. Rukanah divorced his wife absolutely (i.e. three divorces) and the Prophet made it a single divorce.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2191, here.] Sunni: Brother you didn’t understand. I want evidence that three Talaq was one during the life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Wahhabi: “Tawus said: Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that a divorce by three pronouncements was made a single one during the time of the Prophet and of Abu-Bakr and in the early days of the caliphate of Umar? He replied: Yes.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2194, here.] Sunni: According to another Hadith recorded in Muwatta of Imam Malik (rahimullah) it was Marwan Ibn al-Hakim who decided three Talaqs issued in one sitting are irrevocable and marriage is terminated: “Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Marwan Ibn al-Hakam decided that if someone made three pronouncements of divorce, he had divorced his wife irrevocably. Malik said, "That is what I like best of what I have heard on the subject." [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B29, H1156, here.] This could be continuation of what Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) started so no contest on this. Note Imam Malik (rahimullah) agreed with decision of Marwan Ibn al-Hakim saying he has heard the best judgment on subject of three Talaq in one sitting. Wahhabi: There is another authentic Hadith from Sahih of Imam Muslim stating Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged three Talaq in one sitting as three: “Abu Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that three (divorces) were treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and that of Abu Bakr, and during three (years) of the caliphate of Umar? Ibn Abbas said: Yes.” [Ref: Muslim, B9, H3492, here.] How can we accept judgment of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), or Marwan Ibn al-Hakim, or even Imam Malik (rahimullah) when they are against practice/Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? It is clearly an innovation. We don’t say two [Umar radiallah ta’ala anhu and Imam Malik rahimullah] sinned because they were Mujtahid and his error will earn them reward. Sunni: Taraweeh of entire month, under leadership of a single Qari was also started by Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Prophetic Sunnah as established from Ahadith is that it was Sunnah for only three days and that too during the last ten days of Ramadhan. It remained same during life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and during Caliphate of Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). It only became what we all practice when Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) assembled them under a single Qari. Yet you have adopted it and practice it. Why don’t and haven’t you reverted to prophetic Sunnah in regards to Taraweeh if returning to Sunnah is your objective? Wahhabi: Stop lying Brother Taraweeh is a prophetic Sunnah. Sunni: Entire Ramadhan month Taraweeh under leadership of a single Qari and in Masjid a prophetic Sunnah? Wahhabi: No, not this way. Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said follow my Sunnahs and Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs: “It was said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah, you have delivered a speech of farewell, so enjoin something upon us.' He said: 'I urge you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if (your leader) is an Abyssinian slave. After I am gone, you will see great conflict. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the path of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] We have clear instruction to follow Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs so follow Sunnahs of all rightly guided Caliphs. Including three Talaq in one sitting being three, Taraweeh of entire month in Masjid under a single Qari, and anything else they introduced. Wahhabi: You’re misinterpreting Hadith. Scholars have stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Sunnahs of Caliphs and this is not inclusive of innovations introduced by Caliphs but prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs apply during their rule. Sunni: Brother wait. I will deal with your objection after I have completed my response. Don’t add to my plate when I am still trying to finish what is already in it. Otherwise you will complain I am not giving you opportunity to respond to me. Wahhabi: OK! Sunni: As for three Talaq becoming one. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Divorce is twice. Then, either keep (her) in an acceptable manner or release with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what …” [Ref: 2:229] And RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not do contrary to what is revealed in Quran. I cannot believe/accept Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made three into one because it goes against Quranic teaching but evidence suggests he did. Wahhabi: You will reject authentic Ahadith because they do not agree with your understanding? Sunni: Just let me finish Brother. It doesn’t take too much to keep your hands off keyboard so keep them off it. I am not rejecting Sahih Ahadith I don’t even reject Da’if Hadith when they can provide clarification and serve as replacement for Qiyas. Wahhabi: OK! You go on. Sunni: My assessment of Hadith-2191 is that Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) interpreted first pronouncement of Talaq by Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) as intended Talaq and two that followed understood them in sense of emphasis. Example would be Amr telling someone to be, come here, and to emphasize urgency repeat, come here, twice more in quick succession. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not invent his own version of Trinity; three Talaq is one Talaq. And in case of this Hadith-2191 companion issued first Talaq and to emphasize it he followed it by two more. Wahhabi: You rather make Taweel then adopt correct course of action. This is sign of weak Iman. Sunni: Or maybe better education. Wahhabi: Do you have evidence to back this ingenious interpretation? We will see. Sunni: No I don’t have it yet. It is just a theory yet. I will have to study this subject to further my understanding on this topic. I need to see if there are other versions and study them to get complete picture of narrated incident. You will have to excuse me. Wahhabi: I am hoping this doesn’t become last time I see you. After all you’re a modern Muhaqiq and I wouldn’t be surprised if you disappeared. Barelwi Maulvis boast about their Munazra/debate skills but in reality you all are ignorant about Islamic texts. It is only getting tougher for you Brother. Sunni: Brother I haven’t discussed this subject before. I studied traditional Sunni position but not back and forth exchanges between Sunnis and Wahhabis. So this is new to me and it will take bit of time for me to gather my study minerals but I will achieve my objective. Wahhabi: Brother just face the truth and accept it. Sunni: Humility will serve you best my Brother. You’re mistaking me for typical Sunni and I am not. As long as I am alive rest assured I am not going but to come back stronger. Wahhabi: Just come back at very least. I have no expectations of coming back stronger from you Barelwis. Lolz. Sunni: You presented Hadith-2191 as evidence that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made three Talaq as one. Hadith just states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed companion to take his wife back even though he had divorced her three times. Where does it say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared three Talaq are one? Wahhabi: Can I respond? Sunni: Why not!

Hifz ul-Iman ki asal ibarat jis par gustakhi ka ilzam aur khasoosiat e ilm ghayb ki nafi ka inqar ka hokam jari huwa: “Phir yeh kay aap ki zaat muqaddisa par ilm ghayb ka hokam keeya jana agar ba-qawl Zaid sahih ho to phir daryaft talb yeh amr heh keh is Ghayb say murad baaz ghayb heh ya kull ghayb agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” [Hifz ul-Iman.] HanafiGroup ki ibarat: “Phir yeh kay Hazrat ki zaat muqaddas par ilm ghayb agar ba-qawl Zaid (sahil) sahih ho to ham us say daryaft kartay hen keh is ghayb say murad kia heh yehni ghayb ka har fard ya baaz ghayb hee keun nah ho pas agar baaz ghayb murad heh toh aap ki takhsees nah rahi keun keh baaz ghayb ka ilm Zaid wa Umar balkeh har bachay aur deewana balkeh hawayannat ko bi hasil heh.” [Ref: HanafiGroup – Ki Manh Pasand.] Donoon ibaraat kay ilfaaz mein kafi farq heh magr mein sirf joh bunyad ikhtilaf heh us ki taraf tawajjoh dalahoon ga. Asal ibarat Hifz ul-Iman mein lafz aisa ko HanafiGroup nay hifz kar deeya aur aisa ki zameer ki jaga lafz baaz mutabadil kar deeya. Yehni asal ibarat mein ilfaaz “… aisa ilm ghayb …” kay thay magr janab nay tehreef kartay huway ussay “… baaz ilm ghayb …” kar deeya. Janab yeh dawa keren kay aisa ki zameer baaz ilm ghayb ki taraf lot’ti heh toh phir aisa karna tashreef huwa tahreef nah. Tashreeh tab hoti jab aisa ki zameer ko hifz nah keeya jata. Asal ibarat mein lafz aisa aik khaas mana deta heh jis ko hifz tahreef heh tashreeh keh tor mein Hanafi group agar aisa ki zameer saath baaz ka izafa kar letay toh tahreef kay ilzaam ka jawaz nah hota. Yehni agar HanafiGroup Sahib apni is ibarat ko “… baaz ilm ghayb …” is tera pesh kartay “… aisa (baaz) ilm ghayb …” to tahreef kay ilzaam say bari hotay. Zameer aisa kay mutabadil baaz ko lana darust nahin. Dekhyeh khud HanafiGroup sahib nay meri baat ki ta’eed aik aur jaga ki aur voh bi is’see ibarat mein. “… ilm ghayb agar ba-qawl Zaid (sahil) sahih ho to ham …” Is jaga par HanafiGroup Sahib nay Zaid ki tashreeh Sahil say ki magr Zaid ko hifz nahin keeya balkay brackets mein lafz Sahil ka izafa keeya joh tashreeh banta heh. Magr janab nay asal ibarat mein lafz aisa jis par kitaben likhi gaheen aur munazray huway us ko hifz kar deeya. i) Kehta heh kay asool munazra mutabiq pehlay apna ihtiraaz pesh kiya jata heh joh HanafiGroup nay asaan ilfaaz mein likh deeya. Haqiqat yeh keh HanafiGroup Sahib nay ihtiraaz pesh nahin keeya balkay Hifz ul-Iman kay jaisi aik ibarat pesh kee heh. Magr yeh ibarat ko ihtiraaz kay tor pesh kar rahay hen. ii) Hanafi group nay kaha: “Asool munazra mutabiq pehlay apna ihtiraaz pesh kiya jata heh jo mein nay asaan ilfaaz mein likh deeya.” Asool e Munazra mein dawah aur ihtiraaz meray zumidari heh aur aap ka jawab dawah aur ihtiraaz ko uthana. Aap ko Hifz ul-Iman par kab itiraaz huwa joh aap ihtiraaz ko pesh kar rahay hen? Ihtiraaz Ahle Islam ko ho aur pesh Ahle Kufr say HanafiGroup kar raha heh. Hamara ihtiraaz kia heh voh toh alhamdulillah mein pesh karon ga. iii) Agay likhta heh: “Muhammed Ali tumara ihtiraz is’see aqeedeh pay hay joh mein nay upar pesh keeya heh?” Hamara ihtiraaz Hifz ul-Iman ki ibarat aur us mein joh Kufriat hen un par heh. Voh kia hen us ki tafseel aynda ahay gi. Magr mukhtasar Ahle Islam ka nazria heh keh RasoolAllah sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam ko baaz ilm al-ghayb hasil heh. Baaz ilm ghayb kay is aqeedeh par ahle Islam ko kohi ihtiraaz nahin. Thanvi Sahib ki ibaraat jis ki waja say ikhtilaf o hokum kufr jari huwa: “Phir yeh kay aap ki zaat muqaddisa par ilm ghayb ka hokam keeya jana agar ba-qawl Zaid sahih ho to phir daryaft talb yeh amr heh keh is Ghayb say murad baaz ghayb heh ya kull ghayb agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” [Hifz ul-Iman, here] Ahle Islam kay Ahle Kufr ki ibaraat par do wujuhaat ki bina par ihtiraaz heh: i) RasoolAllah sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam kay ilm ghayb ki takhsees/khasoosiat ka inqaar keeya aur is waja say Kufr sar’ri mein para. ii) Thanvi Sahib nay Hifz ul-Iman mein RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko janwaroon, pagaloon, bachoon say tashbeeh deh kar ghaali di aur towheen kar kay Kafiroon say huwa. Takhsees buyadi tor par chaar tor say sabat heh: i) Allah kay Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ka ilm Ghayb qatti aur kamil darja yaqeeni heh jis mein shak o shuba nahin aur Sahihah mein shak karnay wala gumrah aur mutawatira mein shak karnay wala Kafir agar toba baghayr maray toh. Aur RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilawah tamam insanoon janwaroon ko joh ilm ghayb hasil ho voh zanni aur shak shuba kay saath heh. Is sirf bunyad kar agar malhooz rakha jahay toh kia baaz ilm Ghayb qatti ko baaz ilm Ghayb zanni par khasoosiat hasil nahin? Sirf is’see bunyad par say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ki khasoosiat/takhsees sabat ho chuki. ii) Mazeed takhsees wasteh miqdar uloom e ghaybiyyah ko hee leeya jahay toh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’allam) ka uloom e Ghabiyyah ki miqdar is Hadith say maloom ho jati heh jis mein awal qaynaat say ta qayamat kay ahwal kay bayan ka zikr heh. Jab yeh uloom e Ghaybiyyah ki miqdar RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’allam) wasteh sabat heh toh Thanvi Sahib kon say kuttay billay khanzir behal gadday bachay pagal ko jantay hen jin ko itna ilm hasil heh? Agar nahin toh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb ki wasilah miqdar say takhsees sabat huwi. iii) Qaynat kay awal say qayamat din sab kuch bata deeya wali Hadith ki tarf aik dafa phir motowajjoh hoon. Is Hadith say nah sirf miqdaar ki tadad sabat huwi balkay yeh bi sabat hota heh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nay joh waqiat bayan keeyeh un ka talluq zamana maazi, zamana haal, aur zamana mustaqbil say thah. Jin pagaloon, janwaroon, bachoon ki bunyad par RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ki khasoosiat ka radd aur inqaar keeya un mein say kon hen jinoon nay zamana maazi, haal, mustaqbil kay Ilm e Ghayb ki voh tafseel batahi joh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) chukay hen? Agar kohi nahin toh phir maanh lenh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb ki takhsees sabat ho chuki. iv) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay Ilm Ghayb mein maazi haal mustaqbil ka mushayda ghayb, sama ghayb waghyra sabat heh … misaal tor par jannat mein Sahabi kay qadmoon ki awaaz ko sun lena … aur jannat/dozakh musalla namaz par kharay ho kar dekhna … Thanvi Sahib aur un ki aal e Deoband aik aisa gadday, pagal, bachay keeray makoray ka bata denh jin mein yeh khaboobi sabat huwi ho. Agar kohi heh aisa aap kay ilm mein toh; lakh lanat hi us’si taraf mar aur us’see ka kalmah parh. Aur agar nahin aur yaqeenan qattan kohi nahin toh phir maanh lenh kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb ki khasoosiat sabat huwi. v) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay Ilm Ghayb ki khasoosiat ka munkir nah tadad uloom mein khasoosiat, qatti ilm mein khasoosiat, aur Ghayb ki kismoon mein khasoosiat, aur teenoon zamanoon kay ghuyub jan-nay mein khaoosiat ka imaan rakhta heh aur is’see waja say khasoosiat/takhsees ka inqaar karta heh. In chaar bunyadi nuqtoon say sabat huwa kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay Ilm Ghayb ki Takhsees/khasoosiat sabat heh. Aur joh is khasoosiat/takhsees ka munkir heh ya toh voh parlay darjjay ka jahil heh aur agar aalim bazahir heh toh phir bila shak o shuba pakka aur sacha aur sucha Kafir nahin toh murtad zeroor heh. Aur is hukum Kufr ki bunyaden doh hen: i) murtad nay khasoosiat e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ka radd karnay wasteh janwaroon, pagloon, bachoon ko RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ki khasoosiat mein shamal keeya. ii) Aur yeh lehaz nah keeya kay aisoon ko shamil karnay say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko pagloon, janwaroon bachoon say tashbeeh deeh aur shaan mein kami or towheen ki. Tashbeeh Hifz ul-Iman Doh Tarika Say Sabat Huwi: i) Tashbeeh Isharatan: Ahadith say sabat heh kay aik Sahabi nay Um ul-Momineen Aisha (radiallah ta’ala anha) kay samnay bayan keeya kay kutta gadda aurat agar namazi say guzray toh namaz toot jaati heh … toh un-noon nay farmaya kay aap nay auratoon ko kuttoon gaddoon say tashbeeh deh kar mila deeya … aur Hadith say sabat heh kay Sahabi nay ilfaaz tashbeeh kay nah keeyeh thay balkay sirf zikr mein auratoon ko kuttoon gaddoon mein shamil keeya … misaal tor par … “Kutta, Fir’aun, Thanvi, khanzir jandar hen.” Tashbeeh wasteh aisa, waisa, jaisa, istimal nahin huway sirf gina to towheen sabat huwi … abh readers khud hi faisla kar lenh kay kuttay, khanzir kay zikr saath Thanvi aur Firawn ki tauheen huwi ya Thanvi Wa Firaun kay zikr mein kuttay aur Khanzir ki towheen huwi. Hasal kalam keh Tashbeeh wasteh ilfaaz tashbeeh ka zikr zeroori nahin sirf paleedoon kafiroon mein gina janay say towheen ho jaati heh. Thanvi Sahib kay lafz ko agar bilkul hi hifz kar denh ya taweel itna is-qadr aur yeh bi keren toh kuch farq nahin parta keun kay phir tashbeeh isharatan sabat huwi joh asool Um ul-Momineen say sabat heh. ii) Tasbeeh Wazia: Ibarat Hifz ul-Iman mein wazia lafz aisa likha heh: “… agar baaz uloom ghaybiyah muraad hen toh is mein hazoor hi ki kia takhsees heh aisa ilm ghayb toh Zaid wa Umar balkeh har sabbi wa majnoon balkeh jami hawanaat wa bahim kay leyeh bi hasil heh.” Aisa tashbeeh wasteh istimal hota heh. Agar aisa ko zaat e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ghayb taraf lotaya jahay toh phir mana huwa; joh ilm ghayb RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko hasil heh aisa ilm ghayb bi janwaroon pagloon bachoon ko hasil heh to phir takhsees nah rahi. Aur agar aisa ko baaz ki taraf lotaya jahay toh tashbeeh ka rasta badalta heh tashbeeh khatam nahin hoti. Ibarat ka mana hoga … ilm ghayb joh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko hasil heh aisa baaz zaid Umar, Sabi majnoon hawanat ko hasil heh toh takhsees ki waja nah rahi. Hifz ul-Iman ki tashbeeh do wujuhat ki bina par Kufr huwi: i) Agar Thanvi RasoolAllah ka ilm ghayb ko qatti yaqeeni kamil akmal la rayb wala manta heh toh janwaroon pagaloon bachoon say tashbeeh deh kar pagloon bachoon janwaroon kay ilm ghayb ko bi qatti yaqeeni kamil akmal tehraya. Jis waja say Allamah Umar Ucharvi (rahimullah) nay ibarat Hifz ul-Iman kay radd mein likha kay phir agar in sab ka ilm qatti yaqeeni heh toh phir RasoolAllah (sallallahua alyhi wa aalihi was’sallam) par keun imaan laya jah udhar kuttoon ki taraf mar aur un par imaan lah. ii) Dosra mana yeh bi nikalta heh kay agar janwaroon ka ilm qatti/yaqeeni Thanvi nah manay balkay Ahle Islam ki tara zanni shak shuba wala manay toh phir aisoon kay ilm ghayb say tashbeeh deh kar us nay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay ilm ko bi zanni shak o shuba wala tehra deeya. Jis mein towheen e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bi huwi aur un kay ilm ki khasoosiat ka inqaar bi aur mutawatira say sabat qatti yaqeeni ilm ka darja gira kar shak o shuba wala tehraya aur Nabuwat e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aur Wahi e Illahi joh milti thi us mein shak o shuba dala aur yeh bi Kufr heh. Shahid Ahle Kufr kahen keh kay aisa mana itna, is-qadr, yeh mein istimal huwa heh jaisay Manzoor Naumani nay Taweelat keenh. Aur in mana mein aisa Tashbeeh wasteh nahin. Awal toh janab kay gar say hi Hussain Ahmad Madani ki gawahi mojood heh kay lafz aisa hifz ul-Iman mein tashbeeh wasteh istimal huwa heh. Chalen choren Hussain Ahmad Madani pagal thah bhonk gaya ham Deobandi toh nah maneh gay. Aayeh sabat keren kay lafz aisa yahan par sirf Tashbeeh wasteh hi ho sakta heh aur agar mana is-qadr, itna, yeh mein bi ho toh phir bi Tashbeeh wasteh hee hen. Dekhyeh asool musallam heh kay kissi aik ki kissi dosray par fazeelat ya barabari ya khami sabat karni ho toh taqabuli muwazna lazam heh yehni comparision/tashbeeh. Zaid ki agar Amr par Takhsees sabat karni ho ya takhsees ka radd toh donoon ki khoobiyoon ka comparision yehni Zaid aur Amr mein tashbeeh/comparision lazam heh. Warna ba-ghayr comparision aik ki dosray par bartari sabat nahin hoti. Thanvi Sahib ki ibarat Hifz ul-Iman mein taqabuli jaiza leeya gaya, tashbeeh dee gahi, aur nateejan kaha gaya kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko ilm ghayb kay jannay ki waja say janwaroon, pagaloon bachoon par kohi takhsees hasil nahin. Is waja say ibarat mein taqabul subut Tashbeeh heh. Aur yeh bi musallam heh kay Tashbeeh taqabuli bi hoti heh. Misaal tor par lion bhot bahadur aur taqatwar heh aur aisay hi Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Allah kay lion hen. Abh aap itna ko is-qadr, itna, yeh, aisa ba-mana baaz, aisa ba-mana ilm ghayb Nabi, jisteraf bi lotahen ibarat ki bunyad mein taqabuli jaiza heh jis waja say har aik harf mutabadil mein tashbeeh hi pahi jahay gi. Abh Umm ul-Momineen kay asool Tashbeeh Isharatan kay asool ko mad e nazr rakh kar HanafiGroup ki ibarat ki taraf atay hen. HanafiGroup Sahib ki ibarat yeh heh: “Phir yeh kay Hazrat ki zaat muqaddas par ilm ghayb agar ba-qawl Zaid (sahil) sahih ho to ham us say daryaft kartay hen keh is ghayb say murad kia heh yehni ghayb ka har fard ya baaz ghayb hee keun nah ho pas agar baaz ghayb murad heh toh aap ki takhsees nah rahi keun keh baaz ghayb ka ilm Zaid wa Umar balkeh har bachay aur deewana balkeh hawayannat ko bi hasil heh.” [Ref: HanafiGroup – Ki Manh Pasand.] Janab nay koshish ki kay aisa ko nikaal kar tashbeeh ko hifz kar deeya jahay. Magr kufr jahl say Islam ka haq kabi chup nahin paya. Agar aisa ko bilkul hifz keeya jahay toh tab bi tashbeeh sabat huwi Umm ul-Momineen kay asool say, aur takhsees ka inqaar toh janab ki ibarat mein mojood heh. Jis ki explanation aur waja, i.e. ibarat hifz ul-Iman mein taqabuli jaiza, heh. Aur hukum kufr waja tashbeeh aur takhsees ka inqaar heh. Aur Thanvi aur HanafiGroup ki ibarat mein takhsees aur tashbeeh mojood heh. Farq sirf yeh kay Thanvi ki ibarat mein aisa bazahir mojood heh aur HanafiGroup ki manpasand ibarat (joh asal mein al-Muhannad ki ibarat ki naqal heh) mein tashbeeh implied/isharatan heh.

Refuting Taweel Of Shaykh Naumani: Aisa Is In Meaning Of Itna/Yeh And Their Usage Is Without Tashbeeh. Introduction: Shaykh Naumani believes aisa in statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in meaning of Itna and Yeh. And it is not used in sense of Tashbeeh. According to Shaykh Naumani Aisa in meaning of Tashbeeh is Kufr. Islamic position is aisa on its natural meaning is of Tasbeeh and therefore prophtetic knowledge of Ghayb is being compared/Tashbeeh with those mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. And if aisa is returned to baaz, via itna, or via Tashbeeh even then in both cases prophetic knowledge is being Tashbeeh’ed via baaz to creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. 0.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement In Dispute: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 0.1 - Shaykh Naumani Aisa Meaning Itna And Yeh: Shaykh Naumani argues his case Aisa means Itna in following: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] With regards to usage of Aisa in meaning of Yeh he states: “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] He states both Yeh and Itna referr to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb and why he chose Itna and Yeh in following:“I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear. And in both instances (i.e. itna/yeh) baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] After stating that Yeh and Itna both return to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb he states that route to reach to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb would be different but destination is same. And therefore Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be intended due Aisa meaning Yeh/Itna: “And only difference is of explanation and of topic but result of both is one and the same. But from this (baaz) knowledge (equal quantity) of RasoolAllah (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be intended (meaning of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement) at all.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91/92, here.] “Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Shaykh Naumani negates Tashbeeh and affirms Aisa in meaning Itna and Yeh. And he returned Itna/Yeh to Baaz knowledge of Ghayb because his objective is to refute the argument; Shaykh Thanvi equaled the quantity of Prophetic knowledge. 1.0 - Tashbeeh In Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: Common sense dictates statement like of Hifz ul-Iman there has to be Tashbeeh. To negate or to affirm a merit in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman one has to be compared with another. And to say: There is nothing righteous about Thanvi: Men like Thanvi are no better then Ibleesiyeen incarnate. Comparision has to be made to come to this conclusion. Another example: There is nothing special about this apple; it is sweet like that apple. One apple is being compared with another to negate is speciality. Point is to negate speciality of one apple one was compared with the other. Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality of Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and equated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to animals, lunatics, infants in knowledge of Ghayb: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] And he could not negate his speciality if he had not compared prophetic knowledge with the creations he mentioned. When Tashbeeh is fundamental part of statement then there is no other alternative to but to agree that Aisa is of Tashbeeh. He said Aisa is in meaning of Itna and Yeh and not of Tashbeeh. Even this does not change anything; in the statement speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated and for it comparision between two parties is fundamental hence Itna/Yeh has to be of Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended for prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Itna/Yeh Baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared to lunatics, infants, animals, everyday Joe’s in his knowledge of Ghayb. 1.1 - Equality In Quantity Has To Be Established To Negate Speciality: Suppose A and B are being compared in knowledge and speciality/uniqueness of A is negated. Speciality and uniqueness of knowledge known to A can be negated; if there is equality in quantity of knowledge. Or if the knowledge possessed by A is less then knowledge known to B. If Amr believes A’s knowledge is greater in quantity and the type of knowledge known to A is unique/special to A then Amr cannot legitimately negate speciality of A. Rather greater quantity and the type of knowledge known to A establishes his speciality and uniqueness. Coming to the statement of Shaykh Thanvi; he negated speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in knowing Ghayb with following words: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Statement indicates Shaykh Thanvi believes the quantity and the type of knowledge of Ghayb known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal/less then creations he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman. If he believed the Ghuyub types known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are unqiue to him in comparision to mentioned creations and the quantity known to him is greater he would not have negated speciality because then speciality and merit would be established over Zayd, Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. Undeniably this establishes Shaykh Thanvi compared the two equal quantities to negate speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in knowing Ghayb. 1.2 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna/Yeh Or Of Tashbeeh: Shaykh Naumani wrote Aisa is of not Tashbeeh but it is in meaning of Itna/Yeh. Knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of Zayd, Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; to negate speciality of Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then how can Aisa not be of Tashbeeh? If there was actually no Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman then Aisa without Tashbeeh would have been respectable. Coming to home of Shaykh Naumani and his teacher; Shaykh Madani reveals the reality of Aisa: “If it was word itna (i.e. this-much) then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Shaykh Madani after giving number of examples in which Tashbeeh is made and only a single quality/merit is compared he goes on to say Aisa and its Tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is in Baaz knowledge of Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where Tashbeeh is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being Tashbeeh’ed/compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact Tashbeeh/comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] Therefore according to Shaykh Madani the teacher of Shaykh Naumani; Aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is of Tashbeeh. And with this Shaykh Madani has refuted his student and established position of Muslims. Any how if we ignore Aisa in sense of Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and take it to mean Itna/Yeh in light of Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel and it returns to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. In this context Baaz Ilm of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with; Zayd, Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; to negate/refute speciality/uniqueness of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Baaz Ghayb knowledge. In conclusion it needs to be said that Aisa is of Tashbeeh; be it Aisa without Taweel of Itna/Yeh, or be it in meaning Itna/Yeh; Tashbeeh is fundamentally part of Aisa and all it’s meanings i.e. Itna, Is-Qadr, and Yeh. 2.0 - Yeh And Itna Return To Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb: Shaykh Naumani believes both Yeh/Itna return to mention of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb therefore Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and Tashbeeh isn’t possible. Following is reflection of what Shaykh Naumani believes: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/yeh baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] If Itna returns to Baaz then Tashbeeh is in quantity of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Baaz Ghuyub known to mentioned creations. Implication of which is; Baaz Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is like the mentioned creations. If Zameer (i.e. hint) of Yeh is returned to Baaz knowledge of Ghayb then implications are; from Baaz the type of Ghayb knowledge known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also known to mentioned creations. And all these Taweelat are just as insulting and disrespectful. And belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) via his knowledge of Ghayb. Islamic perspective is that Taweel of Aisa to Itna/Yeh directly returns to mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghayb knowledge, and then returns to Baaz: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/yeh baaz1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] And if hint of Itna is returned to mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the statement then implication Tashbeeh is between the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and quantity of mentioned creations. And implications of this would be that Shaykh considers prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal with mentioned creations and therefore he negates speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If hint of Yeh is turned to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the statement then Tashbeeh is of type of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Ghuyub known to creations. And in this context of Itna/Yeh; Baaz is inserted as part of essential details. 2.1 - Explaining The Out Come Of Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel : In simple format Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel would translate into: Itna/Yeh à Baaz à Ghayb Knowledge à Prophet = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And Islamic position would translate to: Itna/Yeh à Prophet’s à Ghayb Knowledge = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. Islamic understanding of his Itna/Yeh establishes Tashbeeh in equal quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and of creations mentioned in the statement. Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel negates explicit equality in quantity but affirms Tashbeeh in Baaz Ghayb even though he rejects the existance of it.[See 1.0, and 1.1] Due to these facts Deobandi Taweel or Islamic scholarships understanding; both are two sides of same coin called disrespect. No sane Muslim would choose one over another. Conclusions: Shaykh Naumani’s Taweelat result the following order: Itna/Yeh à Baaz à Ghayb Knowledge à Prophet = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And Ahle Sunnats understanding of statement of Hifz ul-Iman is as follows: Itna/Yeh à Prophet’s à Ghayb Knowledge = Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And both routes lead to insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel; Aisa in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of Itna/Yeh and not of Tasbeeh is ignoring fact; there is actual Tashbeeh being made between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the creations mentioned to negate speciality of Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore Aisa in meaning of Tashbeeh requires no Taweel. Rather it perfectly fits into context of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Madani is legitimately held to position that Aisa is of Tashbeeh. This is proof of Deobandi refuting Deobandi. And lies of liars being exposed by allies of Shaykh Thanvi. And even if the Taweel of Aisa is made to mean Itna/Yeh Tashbeeh remains fundamental part of both because change of Aisa to Itna/Yeh does not remove the Tashbeeh being made jus the nature of Tashbeeh is changed. Itna denotes Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb and Yeh denotes Tashbeeh in types of Ghayb and quantity of Baaz. And according to Shaykh Naumani Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman would make the statement of Hifz ul-Iman Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaykh Naumani’s Aisa Without Jaisa Argument And Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad. Introduction: This article will focus on Deobandi, specificly Shaykh Naumani’s argument; statement of Hifz ul-Iman uses aisa and it is without jaisa therefore it is not for sake of Tashbeeh/comparision. This article present translation of debate between Allama Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Naumani. It was published as, Nusrat Khuda-dad: Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, and it was compiled by Mawlana Muhammad Hamid Shafi. Please note this is Islamic perspective of account and Deobandi account of debate will be also translated. Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement Subject Of Debate: Q: “A certain individual, Zayd, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … And says Ilm Al-Ghayb is of two types: bil-Zaat [of one’s ownself]; in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb, none else. And ba-wasta [through means, alternative; bil-Ardh; granted by another] and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] A: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Allamah Sardar Ahmad’s And Shaykh Naumani’s Positions: Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and anyone with ability to read Urdu, and not brainwashed in Deobandism, believe statement of Shaykh Thanvi is written comparatively because aisa (i.e. like-this) in context of the statement is of Tashbeeh/comparision. And knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with detestable creations mentioned in the statement. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of insulting of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is of belief that aisa in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is not of Tashbeeh because Shaykh Thanvi did not use jaisa (i.e. like-it, like of, like) but it is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much). Also Shaykh Naumani believes IF statement of Hifz ul-Iman was as Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) believes it is then he too would consider it insulting and Kufr. Allamah Ahmad’s Speech With Aisa And Jaisa: Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman has divided Ilm al-Ghayb into two categories. Qull Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. all hidden knowledge): From which not one thing is excluded (it is Qull Ilm al-Ghayb). And second is Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. some hidden knowledge); however little it maybe (it would still be Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb). Then for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he stated Qull Ilm al-Ghayb is intellectually and evidentially wrong. Now (Qull Ilm al-Ghayb) is no longer an option for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) except Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb; regarding which he said clearly that: ‘… then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e. scorpions, owls, donkey, etc) …’[01] Therefore the meaning of the statement is clearly evident that jaisa ilm (i.e. knowledge like-of) honorable Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses; aisa (knowledge) every child, every lunatic, in fact all animals, quadrupeds possess’s. Every Muslim is aware in this cursed statement Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge has been disrespected.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 197/198, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s First Rebuttle - Aisa Is Without Jaisa: “You have stated that meaning of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is; jaisa knowledge of Ghayb is possessed by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa is possessed by every insane, in fact all animals, quadrupeds. حاشا و كلا. If this is the meaning of the statement even then I would consider the statement to be Kufr because in it would be clear insult of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). But this is not the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman because in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman the word jaisa has not been used. This word (jaisa) you add to (the statement of Hifz ul-Iman) yourself. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman word used is aisa not jaisa. Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib neither reason nor honesty has come near you yet. When reason and honesty was being distributed then I think you was sleeping. Enemy of reason in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman where is jaisa? Hifz ul-Iman’s statement is as follows: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …’ If in this statement jaisa was used then it would have been as follows: ‘Jaisa Ghayb knowledge is possessed by RasoolAllah (salallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa is also possessed by Zayd, Umar, every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds.’ This (statement with jaisa); it would have been according to me; and in fact according to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib also, there would have been definate disrespect and derogration.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 199/200, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s First Rebuttle -: Aisa With/Without Jaisa Means Same: “All praises are for Allah! Maulvi Manzoor Sahib has attested to my position. But in fact by presenting Thanvi Sahid he has certified my claim. My claim was; Hifz ul-Iman’s meaning is unclean and one who believes it is out of Islam and is from those who degrade’s the grand status and is disrespecter of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Maulvi (Naumani) Sahib and (Shaykh) Thanvi Sahib has explicitly stated the same. This is confessional statement: … (poetical line not translated) … Honorable listenters listen carefully. Maulvi Manzoor Sahib is saying that according to Maulvi Ahsraf Ali Thanvi Sahib in the following statement there is insult and subject is impure: ‘Jaisa knowledge of Ghayb matters; is of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa is of every child and every insane but in fact every animal and every quadruped possesses.’ Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s unclean statement is as follows on which the dispute is based on: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e.calf, ownl donkey etc) …’ People of justice should focus on the fact that Hifz ul-Iman’s statement subject/meaning is same which Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is declaring to be impure in his Bast al-Banan. Arguing over the word usage is not way of people of knowledge (when the meaning is exactly the same). By ignoring argument based on word play every person will be compelled to agree the meaning of both statement is in total agreement and in them there is no disagreement in meaning. In both sentences same meaning has been conveyed. For example one person says: ‘Jaisa face is of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi aisa face is of an owl and donkey.’ Second person says: ‘This face of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi; what is so special about it; aisa face is also of an owl and donkey.’ Every intelligent and justice peferring Deobandi-Wahhabi would said the meaning of these two statements is exactly same. And in both (statements) insult Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Even though in the first statement word aisa and jaisa both have been employed. And in the second only aisa is used but not jaisa. In this fashion Hifz ul-Iman’s filthy statement and Bast al-Banan’s unclean statement’s meaning is same. Even though Hifz ul-Iman’s statement uses word aisa and not jaisa. And in Bast al-Banan’s statement aisa and jaisa both are present[02]. Ever after this much explanation one yet does not comprehend the insult in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and to decieve the Muslims say that in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman word used is aisa and not jaisa therefore there is no insult. Then (it has to be said) he is sworn enemy of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and avowed ally of Shaykh Thanvi. For him (a statement of) aisa with absence of jaisa establishes insult of Shaykh Thanvi but it does not occur to him that the word aisa is used without jaisa. Yet for him (statement of Shaykh Thanvi) must have combination of aisa and jaisa for it to be insult of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And if there is no jaisa (in the statement) but only aisa then there is no insult.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 202/204, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s Second Rebuttle -: You’re Inserting Jaisa Into Hifz ul-Iman: “Why do you add the word jaisa into statement of Hifz ul-Iman to create the meaning of disrespect. See the statement is completely free of blame: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …’[03] For you there is no room to embellish (statement of Hifz ul-Iman). The meaning conveyed in Hifz ul-Iman exactly the same meaning has been stated in your Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah) books. But what cure do I have for (your) immodesity and shamelessness!” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 208, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s Second Rebuttle: Example Of Aisa Insulting Without Jaisa: “Honorable Maulvi! During my earlier speech I had quite clearly/detailedly established that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting even if jaisa is absent and there is only aisa but you did not respond to my that point/speech. Instead you repeated what was already refuted. This is clear proof of your (attempt) to avoid (the subject matter). I will give another example in support of my claim. (If) a person says this: ‘What is so special about baaz knowledge of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi; aisa knowledge is even possessed by insane, and animals, and donkeys.’ If any Deobandi says in response to it that in this statement Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is being insulted because the meaning of statement is; jaisa knowledge Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi possesses aisa knowledge is also possessed by insane, animals, donkeys. And the one who made the statement says in this statement word aisa has been used not jaisa . You’re unnecesserily adding the word jaisa into the statement to make the statement insulting. Will the Deobandis accept his Taweel? And if not, and (you will) definitely will not (accept this Taweel). Then why do you invent this Taweel for filthy statement of Hifz ul-Iman? A (Taweel) which is not even acceptable to you. Wahhabis! The truth of matter is in your heart there is no respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so that you understand insult (of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 210/211, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s Third Rebuttle: Aisa In Meaning Of Itna And Is-Qadr: “In statement of Hifz ul-Iman aisa is not used for comparision. In this statement if aisa was used for sake of comparision then I would also attest that Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being disrespected and therefore it is Kufr. But aisa in this statement has been used in meaning of itna and is-qadr. Meaning aisa (as itna) is for stating quantity. Famous Urdu poet Ameer Meenahi in his popular book, Ameer ul-Lughat, vol two, page 302, presents his research on aisa saying: Aisa (meaning) itna, is-qadr. Sentence; ‘aisa mara ad mowa kar deeya. And; Us badah kash ka jism heh aisa lateef wa saaf, zana par ghumah heh moj sharab ka.’ (poet; Barq). After this he presents three more meanings of aisa for which there is no need. In addition to this, people of (Urdu) language consistently in their usage say; ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.’ May Allah forgive! Is the intention to compare power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with power of another? In the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman), like it, word aisa has not been used for comparision but in this statement the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and is-qadr. Yes, aisa is also used for comparision but for it word jaisa is needed. And because in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman word aisa is present and not jaisa therefore in it aisa is not for comparision. By introducing word jaisa into (statement of Hifz ul-Iman) you have given proof of your dubious (character). And provided evidence for being a looser and distorter.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 213/214, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s Third Rebuttle: Aisa, Itna And Jaisa And Hifz ul-Iman: “You have wasted your time in giving few meanings of word aisa. What was the need for this? Who says that word aisa is only used in meaning of comparision. Every Urdu speaker/literate (person) knows that aisa sometimes is used for comparision, some places to inform of quantity, and in some places for admiration/praise. Here the debate is over, only on point, in which meaning word aisa has been used in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. I say that in this statement aisa is for comparision and you say here the word aisa is for mention of quantity; meaning (you say) aisa is in meaning of itna and is-qadr. And I say insult (of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) still remains. (Not only that) but has become even more clear and obvious. Listen to this I will read (statement of) Hifz ul-Iman: ‘if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); (aisa in meaning of) itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds (i.e.calf, ownl donkey etc) …’ Now every Urdu literate/speaker, should get verdict (literally; fatwah) from his heart (which is full) of faith, that in this (statement); is there disprespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Now the meaning of this statement is clearly that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is itna (in quantity) jitna (i.e. as-much) as children, insane, animals, and quadrupeds. It is speciality of Wahhabi sect that (they) clearly disrespect the eminence of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and abuse (him) to their heart content. You made Taweel to avoid and protect (from charge of) Kufr. Yet due to your Taweel the disrespect has become more evident. All this is display of your shameless Wahhabism. It seems Kufr is in love with Wahhabism. Now remains your sentence: ‘Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) aisa qadir heh.’ In it rightly word aisa is not for comparision but what connection does this statement has got with statement of Hifz ul-Iman? This (example of yours) is not like-example (of statement of Hifz ul-Iman where aisa is used) but Hifz ul-Iman’s like-example would be like; if a disrespectful and mannerless person like your Thanvi Sahib says: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute power to holy being of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this power; all powers are zaati and atahi, or baaz; if baaz powers are intended; then in this what is so unique about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); aisi powers are even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if qull powers are intended then this is intellectually and textually false because Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) power is zaati not atahi power.’ Tell me in this statement aisa is for comparision or not? Your honor has invented a new principle; until aisa is not with word jaisa it will not be for comparision, and there will be no comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with of infants, lunatics, animals, qaudrupeds, until jaisa is part of it) nor there will be disrespect. You seem to be ignorant of Urdu phraselogy. Firstly tell me who has written this principle (and where)? Secondly even if your point is taken on board then for asia to be of comparision jaisa is lafzi qarina: (A matter of principle is) when word of comparision is omitted even then meaning of comparision remains. As an example if someone says:’Zaid shey’r heh.’[04] (Meaning would be:) ‘Zaid Shey’r jaisa bahadur heh.’[05] How can the meaning of comparision can be negated when lafz qarina is omitted (because jaisa can be justifiably assumed into meaning of statement as demonstrated in example). It could be that instead of jaisa there maybe another qarina of comparision and there is in this statement. Meaning negation of speciality (of prophetic Ghayb knowledge and of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and affirmation of partnership (of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds in baaz knowledge of Ghayb).[06] Thirdly principle/president of your seminary of Deobandi Maulvi Hussain Ahmad on page 111 of his book al-Shihab as-Saqib regarding the same unclean statement wrote: “… word aisa is utterance of comparision …”[07] You stated word aisa without jaisa is not of comparision and yet president of your (seminary of) Deoband is saying that in this statement aisa is of comparision. Even though there is no jaisa. So tell out of you two who is a liar and who is truthful? Fourthly if a person says: ‘Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi knowledge; aisa is of animals and quadrupeds.’ In this aisa is of comparision or not? If it is (of comparision) then according to what rule/principle it is (not) so? And in this is there insult directed toward Maulvi Ashraf Ali or not? If you say there is (insult directed toward Shaykh Thanvi) then in this (sentence) there is aisa without jaisa. And if you say no (there is not insult) then do you give permission (to us) that (we) publish regarding Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi similar statements? Will you and any other Deoband will not find it displeasing? You say that: ‘If in this statement aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be disrespect for Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and therefore it is Kufr.’[08] And yet principle of your (seminary of) Deoband says that aisa is for comparision like it has already (been proven). Listen to another; on page 113 of Shahab al-Saqib it is stated: “Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.”[09] Be just; you say that if aisa in the statement is of comparision it would be insulting and Kufr and your principle (of seminary of) Deoband is saying that aisa is of comparision. The understanding (of aisa) which principle of Deoband is stating according to this reason you accepted Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi is Kafir.[10] Say Maulvi Manzoor what is your opinion (regarding this)? […] (7) Sign this transcript: ‘If baaz knowledge is intended then in this what is so special about Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi? Aisa (in meaning of itna and is-qadr) knowledge is possessed by Zaid, Amr, in fact every infant, lunatic, in fact all animals and quadrupends.’” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 215/219, here.] Shaykh Naumani’s Fourth Rebuttle: Aisa Without Jaisa Is Insulting Shaykh Thanvi: “My faith is that one who insults my master (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is certainly Kafir. You have in this turn employed insulting words for Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib: ‘Aisa knowledge of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib is also possessed by animals and quadrupeds.’ Any person who utters words like this against the dignity of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi such (person) is insulter and should get his head examined. […] And the example which you gave me signing for Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, it is extremely disrespectful of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib. One who insults Maulana Thanvi Sahib in this manner such person is an idiot and ignorant.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 220/221, here.] Allamah Ahmad’s Fourth Rebuttle: “You have repeatedly claimed Hifz ul-Iman’s state is free of blame. This sentence of yours is not answer to all of my (seven) questions nor you saying this will make it blameless. First you claimed if aisa is without jaisa then (aisa) is not for comparision. I refuted your this point and proved in presence of this gathering that aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is of comparision and in it is clear insult and disrespect of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in order to decieve the public you did not openly acknowledge it. Now when I gave example of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi Sahib (in a statement which was) with aisa but without jaisa then you was (and) in fact the entire group of people with you (on podium) is in distress. Even though in this example word is aisa and with it not is word jaisa. Here you do not listen/accept any excuse and nor you remember/employ (your) rule of aisa without jaisa. What’s the reason? Matter is that you and your entire sect of Wahhabism has founded faith on Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi (and not on Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[11] For this reason you and in fact entire sect of Wahhabism does not tolerate insult of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi for even a minute but for holy honour of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) you and your sect of Wahhabism’s leaders have published abundant of insults and disrespects and abuse. These you did not find displeasing. In order to decieve the attendees of meeting you outwardly say that one who insults Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir. Is this edict of yours for others? Can your leaders direct insults toward illuminated Hadhoor, intercessor of day of gathering (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as they wish?Can they disrespect (him), disparage him for them is not (is this teaching of yours)? I wish your heart had even spec worth of faith then today you would not have defended one who has insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). At one instance you say one who insults the blessed soil of purified Madinah is Kafir and then in another instance you say; a person who says knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is of mad (people), animals, quadrupeds; you consider him to be your mentor and leader. Give up this double standard and repent.” [Ref: Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad, pages; 222/223, here.] Conclusion: In the first turn, Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) employed jaisa while explaining the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In first rebuttle Shaykh Naumani objected to usage of aisa arguing addition of jaisa turns the statement of Shaykh Thanvi to statement of comparision. In his first rebuttle Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) replied addition of jaisa while explaining the statement of Hifz ul-Iman does not change its meaning. And then he went to quote form statement of Hifz ul-Iman with addition of jaisa and also quoted the original statement of Hifz ul-Iman with aisa. And appealed to common sense of people to decide if both statements mean the same or not. In addition he formed a stated with jaisa regarding Shaykh Thanvi and similar meaning statement with aisa to demonstrate aisa without jaisa is of Tashbeeh and insult is implied. To which, as par Sunni account of debate, Shaykh Naumani did not reply in the following rebuttle. In the second rebuttle Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) again formed statements of aisa without jaisa which were insulting Shaykh Thanvi to lure Shaykh Naumani into his pre-planned trap. And in his fourth rebuttle Shaykh Naumani rather stupidly went on to confirm statement of Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) even with, aisa and without jaisa, is insulting Shaykh Thanvi. With this confession Shaykh Naumani undermined entire basis of his defence argument. In the third rebuttle of Shaykh Naumani he attempted to capitalise on the fact that aisa without jaisa can be used in various meanings. And since there is no jaisa one is without justification to insert it in the text of Hifz ul-Iman. In third rebuttle of Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) he argued absence of jaisa is not proof of its absence. He argued with examples in which aisa is used but not jaisa yet implications of the statement are explained with usage of jaisa. In other words jaisa is omitted but is supposed into text when aisa statement is explained. It is similar to writing, harf akhir, yet it is read as harf -e- akhir, point is if hamza (i.e. pronounced as, ay) is omitted from writing it is supposed to be assumed into text. When the statement is of Tashbeeh due to usage of aisa then jaisa is to be read into original text . He also went on to argue negation of speciality of one over another can only be if x is compared with z and conclusion arrived is; one is not better over the other -; in other words Tashbeeh can be implied from context. And we find statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such a statement in which speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated hence the jaisa aspect can definitely be established from statement even though its omitted. At the end of third rebuttle Allama Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) presented to Shaykh Naumani statement, where aisa was used without inclusion of jaisa, which he wanted Shaykh Naumani to attest as sign of agreement but Shaykh Naumani refused to sign the agreement stating it is insulting Shaykh Thanvi. Yet he could not agree to this and invented out of thin air rule, aisa without jaisa is not of Tashbeeh, but he did not and could not apply the same for his Shaykh Thanvi. Lastly Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Madani, who was senior and teacher of Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani considered statement of Shaykh Thanvi statement of Tashbeeh even though it was without jaisa. The discussion between Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Naumani establishes from linguistical principles point view that statement of Shaykh Thanvi is of comparision. And therefore it is insulting and Kufr and one who believes it and defends it is after correct knowledge regarding it has been imparted to him/her regarding it then if such a person continues to defend it is Kafir. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNote: - [01] I have reason to believe Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) did not insert these but rather these words were inserted by compiler to give example of what is included in each category. After reading the account number of times I have not noted any protest from Shaykh Naumani. And if these were the words of Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) at very least Shaykh Naumani would have mentioned them at the very least once. If Shaykh Naumani can cry foul over addition of jaisa while explaining statement of Hifz ul-Iman this would have been greater cause for crying foul. Due to this I am confident these are insertions of compiler and therefore the statements should be read without words in brackets. - [02] The statement Muhadith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is pointing to is what Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi referrenced to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) Hussam ul-Haramayn; it uses aisa and jaisa. And it’s translation is being quoted: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] - [03] The complier of debate Mawlana Muhammad Hamid al-Shafi did not quote the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Yet the Urdu sentence and its translated form indicates it was quoted hence it is being inserted into text. Also if quote is not inserted then Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) speech does not connect to Shaykh Naumani’s 2nd rebuttle. Implication of which is statement is without jaisa therefore no insult. - [!] It seems Sunni compiler of debate deliberately omitted insults of Shaykh Naumani directed toward Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). In Deobandi account of debate Shaykh Naumani used aisa phrased statements to insult Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and admitted even though statement is without jaisa it is still insulting. Whatever the reason for omission the confession is being quoted from Deobandi account of debate. Please note in Sunni debate account Shaykh Naumani’s insults directed toward Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) are omitted but the confession that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is mentioned in fourth rebuttle of Shaykh Naumani. - [04] Translates to: ‘Zaid is lion.’ - [05] Translates to: ‘Zaid is corageous like a lion.’ - [06] In simple words; Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in having knowledge of Ghayb because he said knolwedge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed by other creations. For him to negate the speciality he had to compare the the type and quantity of Ghuyub known to both parties (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam VS Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds) and after comparing and reaching conclusion knowledge of both parties is equale and of same type he could negate speciality of prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). - [07] “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] - [08] The closest to what Mawlana Sardar Ahmad attributed to Shaykh Naumani is following -: found in beginning of third rebuttle: ‘In this statement if aisa was used for sake of comparision then I would also attest that Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being disrespected and therefore it is Kufr.’ I assume Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) was just conveying the meaning. And it is expected that it would be difficult to remember everything and quote verbatim. Or even if Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Naumani verbatim the compiler has conveyed the meaning of what Shaykh Naumani said. - [09] “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “…if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] - [10] The conclusion of Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) does not follow/agree with what he established. It is illogical to conclude that Shaykh Madani wrote it is for comparision and conclude Shaykh Naumani agrees that Shaykh Thanvi is Kafir. More logical and rational conclusion would have been: ‘Shaykh Madani understands the statement of Hifz ul-Iman in sense of Tashbeeh/comparision and his understanding of statement according to you (i.e. Shaykh Naumani) is Kufr therefore Shaykh Madani guilty of Kufr according to you.’ Or he could have modified the last part and ended it with a question: ‘Shaykh Madani understands the statement of Hifz ul-Iman in sense of Tashbeeh/comparision and his understanding of statement according to you (i.e. Shaykh Naumani) is Kufr. Now my question to you is: Is Shaykh Madani guilty of Kufr/Kafir?’ If Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) made the statement he made mistake. But I believe he did not because his scholarly credentials and his calibre of scholarship was too high for this amatur blunder. This is only place where I find myself disagreeing with Mawlana Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) understanding/conclusion. - [11] Allamah Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) has implied that Shaykh Naumani and his clan of Deobandis has based their faith in Islam due to accepting Shaykh Thanvi as Prophet of Allah (subanahu wa ta’ala) and not on basis of believing Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Various Interpretations Of Hifz ul-Iman’s And Implications Of These Interpretations. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman in which he insulted/disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by comparing knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to knolwedge of regular Joe’s knowledge along side of infants, lunatics, quadrapeds and carnivores. Scholars of Islam requested and pleaded him to repeal the statement from Hifz ul-Iman and repent but instead he indirectly encouraged his supporters to defend him and make excuses on his behalf. This article will briefly address their efforts and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits me each of his supporter will receive a due response in time. This is just the beginning greater plans to unravel. Insha Allah. Literal Translation Of Statement From Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Aisa/Like In Meaning Of Quantity: Typically Deobandis, such as Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Chandpuri, Shaykh Manzoor Nomani, argued; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement aisa/like-this is to be understood in meaning of itna (i.e. this much) is-qadr (i.e. this-quantity), yeh (i.e. this) and it was not used comparatively. According to this Taweel (i.e. interpretation) the statement of Shaykh Thanvi would read: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna (i.e. this-much) Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] This is no less offensive because if the statement is understood in context of itna, is-qadr, then the quantity of Ghayb of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being equaled to qauntity of every day Joe’s knowledge of Ghayb along side infants, mad-man, every animal quadrapeds, and carnivores. Aisa/Like In Sense Of Comparision/Tashbeeh: In opposition to both of the above another Deobandi scholar; Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani argued aisa/like-this is used comparatively if it was in meaning of itna (i.e. this much) then it would be offensive. According to him aisa/like-this was used for sake of comparison (i.e. tashbeeh). If the statement is in this meaning then it is to be understood like: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); comparatively aisa (i.e. like-this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In this sense the statement means; Ghayb knowledge like [ba-wasta, transltd; via means][1] in comparison to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed by Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrapeds and carnivores. Implications Of Aisa In Meaning Of Itna And Tashbeeh: Implication of first is; quantity of prophetic knowledge is same as the mentioned in list. People in wordly knowledge aren’t even equale but Shaykh Thanvi made prophetic knowledge equal to the mentioned in list. And not wordly knowledge, but in knowledge of Ghayb, every bit of which establishes speciality of a Prophet. Not only he attributed to them knowledge of Ghayb he attributed equality to them if aisa is in meaning of itna. Implication of second is; the type of prophetic knowledge which suppose to be unique to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not unique to him but the mentioned also share it with him there for he’s not unique/special. And this is Kufr on three accounts; i) comparing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to the mentioned which includes detestables, ii) negating speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) iii) and negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Ghayb knowledge is special to every Prophet and to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as well and it is inclusive of Wahi. To say it is not special but others share is to negate the very purpose of his Prophet-hood. Conclusion: If aisa/like-this is interpreted to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much, this-quantity) then knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being equaled to knowledge of mentioned and implication is that he is no different from knowledge of mentioned in quantity. If statement is interpreted in context of – tashbeeh – then it is comparing the knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with the mentioned and pointing out that he is no different to mentioned due to his knowledge. However the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is interpreted in both statements his knowledge is being compared to the mentioned. In the first case – itna/is-qadr – comparison is implied and knowledge is clearly equaled to mentioned. In the second case – aisa/like – being for TASHBEEH the comparison is obvious in types of Ghuyub. However one roles the dice insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be removed from statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi - [1] “Shar’ri application of mutliq Ghayb (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of comprehension. On this (stated) foundation it has stated: "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means (i.e. ba-wasta) on this [type of knowledge] application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exposing The Reality Of Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman With Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan And Taghyeer Ul-Unawan. Introduction: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi wrote letter to Shaykh Thanvi citing Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Hussam al-Haramayn. Shaykh Darbhangi informs Shaykh Thanvi that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following statement; Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by infant, madman, every animal, and every quadruped. Then he proceeded to ask four questions regarding Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. The response to these four questions was published as Bast al-Banan. 0.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement: Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood! And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16 , here] 0.1 – A Template For Explanation: Please note an (alphabet) will be inserted to help fully expand the statement of Shaykh Thanvi to its fullest natural meaning. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being(a) then matter needs to be enquired(b); is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb(c); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this(d) what is so unique about Hadhoor(e); Ghayb knowledge like-this(f) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Note that Urdu readers will naturally be able to drive the meanings but in translation to English some connections have been lost hence it is important to point them out clearly and explicitly as possible. So the following exposition is only highlighting imbeded meaning of statement. 0.2 - Statement Expanded In Accordance With Natural Meaning: Shaykh wrote: ““If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being(a) then matter needs to be enquired …” Words ‘zaat e muqaddisa’ translated to mean ‘holy being’ referrs to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the following, “…then matter needs to be enquired(b); is intended …”, contextually Zaid is enquired and this Zaid can be anyone who suggests Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses Ilm al-Ghayb. In the following, “… is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb(c) …”, Qull means all/every, and erroneously it is believed Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge of Ghayb is Qull, it is too widely held notion, therefore whenever it is used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reader should assume limitless knowledge of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In the following, “…is intended; then in this(d) what is so unique …”, word is-mein translated to mean in-this is hint toward baaz ilm al-Ghayb. In the following he uses Hadhoor to referr to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor(e) …” Hadhoor means, honorable, Hadhir (i.e. present); and in subcontinent it is popularly used individually or as a prefix for religiously esteem personalities. And context here determines it is used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the following, “…Ghayb knowledge like-this(f) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …”, word aisa has been used to mean like-this and it is a hint toward baaz Ilm al-Ghayb being discussed in context. Putting all this into context the statement naturally means: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” 0.3 - Naturally Implied Further Expansion Of Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb(a); baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in-this(b) baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this(c) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In all three places some questions and their answers can remove the ambiguity. Please note readers should read the brief questions in context of relevent part of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement. In first part (a): The Urdu says; “… is Ghayb say murad baaz Ghayb heh ya …” English; “..is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or …” Question is; in which Ghayb and whose Ghayb? In second place (b): Urdu reads; “… baaz uloom Ghaybiya murad hen toh is-mein …” English; “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in-this …” The questions are; in what and in whose? Finally in third place (c): Urdu reads; “… aisa ilm e Ghayb toh …” English; “… Ghayb knowledge like-this …” Question: what knowledge of Ghayb and whose knowledge of Ghayb? Contextually it is evident he is discussing the Ghayb which Zaid attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the category of baaz ilm al-Ghayb which Shaykh Thanvi himself suggested out of Baaz and Qull to discuss the attribution of title Aalim ul-Ghayb. In light of this the statement to its fullest sense should be understood in the following: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this baaz which was considered for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The statement is fully expanded and meanings which were understood through Zameers (i.e. hints) of words such as; ees Ghayb, is-mein, aisa and contextually are supported. Readers are more then welcome to referr to original statement quoted in section 0.0 and carry out comparative analysis of original and expanded version. 1.0 - Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat On Shaykh Thanvi In His Hussam al-Haramayn: Shaykh Naumani in his Faisla Kun Munazra verbatim quoted the following: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’[1] I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.”[2] [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here.] Following continues from where Shaykh Naumani left but it is being quoted from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (alayhi rahmat ar-Rahman) Hussam al-Haramayn: “And how the boastful ignormous could not understand that Zayd and Umru and names of others he mentioned; if they know a matter of Ghayb even then it would gained through speculation. And definitive (knowledge of) matters of Ghayb is purely for Prophets (alayhis salam). And definitive knowledge of Ghayb if it is known by non-Prophets then it is through Prophets informing them and not through anyone else. And have you not seen how your Lord has stated: ‘Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers.’ [Ref: 3:179] ‘The knower of the unseen (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone, Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, …’ [Ref: 72:26/27] See how this man left the Quran and lost his faith. And ended up enquiring what is difference between Prophet and animals (in regards to Ghayb). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sets seal on heart of every deceptively arrogant (person) like this.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88, here.] 2.0 - Bast Al Banan The Deception Of Shaytan: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi introduces why the need for questions arose: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . Therefore following matters are need of clarification …” He then proceeds to pose four questions about what was attributed to Shaykh Thanvi by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “(i) Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such? (ii) If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied? (iii) Or did you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” And following is response of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi: (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] 3.0 – First Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Note if you have difficulty grasping the natural meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman please referr to section 0.1 and 0.2. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted the following words of Hifz ul-Iman:“…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following meanings: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” Shaykh Darbhangi introduced the allegation of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in the following words: “…that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped …” In context of what Shaykh Darbhangi attributed to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi -; Shaykh Darbhangi enquired: “Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such?” Shaykh Thanvi lies and states: “In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart.” Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted Shaykh Thanvi’s controversial statement and meaning of it is; there is nothing special about baaz knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge like of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by regulars Joe’s, every; infant, lunatic, and all; animals and quadrupeds. And Shaykh Thanvi precisely wrote this in Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 3.1 - Taghyeer ul-Unwan Exposes Lies Told In Bast al-Banan: Shaykh Thanvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. In which a un-named supporter of Shaykh Thanvi suggests to Shaykh that he should alter the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. He believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting and based this fact the un-named Mawlvi’s omitted portion of letter likely read: Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh). And that statement is not from heaven/sky nor it is revelation; whose apparent wording and (contextual) reason of statement with exact words should remain” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in respose to un-named adviser and questioner writes: “It is very good advice. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. Prior to this no one pointed out the reason (why the statement of Hifz ul-Iman should be changed) therefore (I held to belief that) altering of statement would make it against the intended meaning (of Hifz ul-iman and this would) evidence of confession (of Kufr). And confession of Kufr is Kufr therefore didn’t only think alteration of necessary but didn’t even consider it legitimate. Now in this question the reason stated is realistic enough (i.e.أمرواقعي). Therefore accepting your advice I am altering the …” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page122, here.] Shaykh Thanvi confesses to fact that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is; if seen has it is written then it is insulting and Deobandis are struggling to defend him. And he stated it is amr waqi’i what the questioner stated. In other words he agrees with what the questioner stated; statement is apparently insulting for those lack depth of understanding, the meaning objected are genuine possibility, and his followers struggle in defending his statement. 4.0 - Second Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And Second Answer: Shaykh Darbhangi enquires from Shaykh Thanvi: “If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied?” Shaykh Thanvi once again shamelessly lies and states: “This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: …” In the following portion Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi states: “A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin (i.e. righteous Muslim); in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Here Shaykh Thanvi has indirectly/implicitly has stated what he stated earlier and what he was accused of by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Not forgetting he explicitly/directly stated what he was accused of. And once again I quote his own words: ); “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” 4.1 - Second Question And Answer: Kufri/Insulting Meaning Can Be Implied: Now getting to the meat of matter: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani are on the record for presenting Taweel (i.e. alternative interpretation) of this statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi are of view statement is in sense of quantity and aisa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) and not in comparative sense. And they believe if it was in comparative sense then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would be insulting/Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand is of opinion; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is to be understood in comparative sense because aisa (i.e. like this) has been used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And if it was used in sense of quantity; in meaning of itna then it would be insulting/Kufr. Ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said; aisa is used in this meaning and not in this. And if it was in this meaning then it would have been objectionable (due to being insulting and Kufr). All this in effort to defend against accusation of Kufr. And both parties of Deobandi sect consider Taweel of other party as insulting and Kufr. Now if there wasn’t explicit or implicit Kufr then why would both parties consider understanding of other party as insulting and Kufr! In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent at the very least implied insult/Kufr in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. 5.0 - Shaykh Darbhangi’s Third Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Answer: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” Shaykh Darbhangi enquired regarding what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “Or did you intend such a topic/meaning?” And Shaykh Thanvi responds to it by saying: “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning?” Shaykh Thanvi deemed what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to him as filthy (i.e. khabees) and he said he could not even comprehend it let alone intend such filth. But the grand master of deception and lies precisely wrote what he deems khabees mazmoon (i.e. filthy subject/meaning): “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” 6.0 - Shaykh Darbhangi’s Fourth Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Answer: For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please study both parts and see if there are differences in summary of what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi and what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman. Now coming to what Shaykh Darbhangi enquired from Shaykh Thanvi in quite detail: “If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” Shaykh Thanvi answered the question in detail saying: “Any person believes as such, or without believing it, explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (from the merits of) pride of children of Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions.” In light of what was attributed by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to Shaykh Thanvi, and what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman, and his own Fatwah of Kufr: We Muslims would be justified to say; Shaykh Thanvi declared himself Kafir. Conclusion: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi belief that there is nothing special about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb because knowledge of like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also known to every day Joe’s, every infant, lunatic and all animals and quadrupeds. And this is precisely what Shaykh Thanvi wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Thanvi deceptively denied ever writing anything like it and declared it Kufr but Hifz ul-Iman is testimony to it and proof of his own Kufr in light of his own edict. Further proof of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman being insulting and disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), therefore Kufr, is the statement of supporter of Shaykh Thanvi, which he himself quoted in Taghyeer ul-Unwan. And Shaykh Thanvi agreed with conclusions of his supporter. Therefore the Muslims were/are justified in declaring Shaykh Thanvi of being Kafir and charging those who defend his statement of Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] To inform the readers of belief of Shaykh Thanvi -; Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) only quoted the under lined part of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal and quadrupeds because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left the material in between because Shaykh Thanvi explicitly stated Baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not special. And the material that followed Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the Baaz Ghayb doesn’t establish speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb. - [2] Please note Shaykh Naumani translated Arabic words of Hussam ul-Haramayn in his Faisla Kun Munazra (i.e. the decisive debate) and his translation of Arabic Hussam al-Haramayn is word for word copy of Shaykh Thanvi’s Urdu found in Hifz ul-Iman, here. Indicating Shaykh Naumani did not find any difference between Arabic of Hussam al-Haramayn and Urdu of Hifz ul-Iman. And following his footsteps I have inserted relevent portions of my English translation of Hifz ul-Iman into English translation of Hussam al-Haramayn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement In Sense Of Tashbeeh And Equality In Quantity Of Knowledge. Introduction: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) alleged Shaykh Thanvi equalled Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb of; Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. A righteous Muslim would have seriously considered the allegation and thought about all angles and upon being informed would have repented. Shaykh Thanvi had other plans he decided to defend his statement. And seeing their Shaykh in battle the minions of Iblees joined and made excuses for their master. Some said Shaykh Thanvi never wrote this statement of Hifz ul-Iman[1] but when they were confronted with truth they had no answer but to run to Thana Bhawan. Others took the course of Taweel (i.e. re-interpreting) of obvious in order to blunt the charge of insult/disrespect. There were two main proponents of Taweel movement apart from Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Madani and his student Shaykh Naumani. Note Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan laid the foundation of Taweel of both parties. Result was Shaykh Madani claimed there is tashbeeh in statement of Shaykh Thanvi if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would be problematic. Shaykh Naumani said statement is not in sense of tashbeeh because aisa is used to mean itna. If it was tashbeeh it would be Kufr. And all parties agreed that there is no mention of equality in quantity by Shaykh Thanvi in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. This article will address two points, denial of tashbeeh, and denial of equality in quantity. Effort will be made to establish equality and tashbeeh. 1.0 - Controversial Statement And Shaykh Negates Equality In Quantity: Following is portion of Hifz ul-Iman in which Shaykh Thanvi attempted to rightly/justly refute notion that title Aalim ul-Ghayb can be applied upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he knows Ghayb but the tone and language used was insulting/disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In his following pamphlet size booklet some 10 years later Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Thanvi regarding the statement of Hifz ul-Iman states in his two page pamphlet published as Bast al-Banan hints; he deems the prophetic and knowledge of those whom he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman to be baaz (i.e. limited) but different in quantity. 1.1 - Shaykh Madani Confirms Tashbeeh But Negates Equality In Quantity: Shaykh Madani taking que from his beloved Shaykh Thanvi writes: “Honorable people! Matter discussed (of Hifz ul-Iman) was if it is correct to use for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the title of Aalim ul-Ghayb or not. Knowledge and quantity of prophetic knowledge was not being discussed (in Hifz ul-Iman). You should read the statement of Shaykh Thanvi from beginning to end; in it he is arguing the usage of this phrase (Aalim ul-Ghayb) for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not right/legal.” Shaykh Madani continues to write: “In it he is not discussion if he (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb of any kind or not; and if there is then how much of Ghayb does he know. Every intelligent person understands the difference between establishing a belief and application of word (as title) details of which will be mentioned ahead. Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much).” Purpose of negating discussion of quantity is to negate the notion that prophetic quantity was equalled with what Shaykh Thanvi mentioned in list of beings. Shaykh Madani continues: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Note Shaykh Madani says quantity of prophet knowledge was not discussed in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And says if itna was used instead of aisa then equality in quantity would be established and it would have been valid reason for objection because then prophetic knowledge would be equalled in quantity to; lunatics, infants, animals and every day Joe’s. In his next statement he explicitly negates/rejects the notion that there is tashbeeh in quantity in Hifz ul-Imans controversial statement: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] In another part of books he writes: “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] Alhasil -: In understanding of Shaykh Madani the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is comparative (i.e. of tashbeeh) in nature. And the comparision is in category of limited knowledge not in quantity of limited knowledge. Note he explicitly negated the notion that Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman compares quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. 1.2 - Shaykh Naumani Negates Tashbeeh And It Is In Quantitive Sense Of Itna: Shaykh Naumani considers aisa (i.e. like-this) in meaning of itna (i.e. thi-much). According to Shaykh Madani if it was itna then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would establishe equality in quantity (see pages 281/282, above) which is an apparent contradiction. Ignoring this contradiction of liars; who really are senselessly scrambling to cover up with their lies and deception the obvious Kufr. Shaykh Naumani like Shaykh Madani he too believes itna is without establishing equality between quantity: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] In another part he is quoted to have said: “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).”[2] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] In the following statement Shaykh Naumani explicitly stated that Shaykh Thanvi in his Hifz ul-Iman did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb: “In this turn you again read (aloud) statement of Hifz ul-Iman and you have claimed regarding it what you have claimed about it since yesterday. I have given quite detailed and clear response to it and you should remember/recall it. This time I will briefly say another thing about it. Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Alhasil Shaykh Naumani to believes itna refers to baaz and prophetic knowledge of baaz is not being compared with baaz knowledge of individuals mentioned in his statement. 2.0 - Shaykhs; Thanvi, Naumani, And Madani Negate Equality In Quantity: In short it is clear that all three are unanimous in their understanding that quantity of limited prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was not part of the discussion nor Shaykh Thanvi intended to discuss the quantity. Shaykh Madani is of view; Shaykh Thanvi compared the prophetic knowledge in Baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) with knowledge of regular Joe’s, infants, animals, lunatics. And he did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge with quantity of knowledge possessed by regular Joe’s, lunatics, infants, animals and quadrupeds. Shaykh Naumani on other hand disagrees with his teacher Shaykh Madani and says; there is no comparision in quantity because the word aisa (i.e. like-this) is used in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) and it is used without denoting quantity. 2.1 Technicalities And Pointlessness And Senselessness Of Shuyukh Of Deoband: Considering both positions in light of that is all logical and rational and intelligent; it has to be said Shaykh Madani has got the right general idea but stupidly negates aisa meaning itna which his position naturally implies. Also Shaykh Naumani is barking up the wrong tree by saying itna is without tashbeeh: If hint of aisa/itna is returning to baaz then Shaykh Thanvi has to compare the prophetic knowledge with regular Joe’s, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds to negate speciality which he did in his statement. In simple words comparision to negate speciality/uniqueness equals = tashbeeh. Shaykh Madani on other hand has the general concept right but was reluctant to accept aisa is used in meaning of itna. If Shaykh Madani had said: ‘Aisa is for tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and tashbeeh of aisa is with generality of baaz not quantity of baaz and therefore appropriate alternative from linguistic sense for aisa would be itna.’ He could have perfectly held the same position which he mentioned by incorporating part of Shaykh Naumani’s position into his own. He could have but there was little angel in his subconcious saying Shaykh Thanvi’s statement insulting/disrespectfull. Somehow Shaykh Madani managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity of baaz and this prevented him from taking natural mentioned route. Coming to Shaykh Naumani; if Shaykh Naumani had said the following then his he would have had better ground: ‘Aisa is in meaning of itna due to linguistic usage of aisa in meaning of itna. And aisa/itna is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) between baaz without comparing quantity of prophetic knowledge and mentioned others.’ These Shuyukh could have argued their case and held to same positions but the difference would be that both wouldn’t have contradicted each other. Surprisingly both felt Shaykh Thanvi’s statement would be Kufr if it was understood in meaning which other out of two suggested. 2.3 - Two Insults In One Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi: Instead of both taking the voices of their concious and agreeing with them both decided to stab their angels to death with the fork of red little Satan. And thought if they supress their concious and say it is not in this meaning and say it is in that meaning then the Kufr would be lifted from Shaykh Thanvi. The offense in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is two fold: i) Shaykh Thanvi negated/rejected the notion that prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special/unique but it is like the lunatics, animals, infants, every day Joe’s and quadrupeds. ii) Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is actually implying prophetic knowledge is equal to the mentioned relatives of Shaykh Thanvi in quantity and quality. Both of these Shuyukh have focused their Taweelat to negate the first charge. It is worth noting that both these Shuyukh have not managed to successfully defend against the first charge. The first charge is naturally and fundamentally part of second charge and if second charge is established then naturally the first charge would be established. 2.4 - Playing Chicken With Kufr And Not Realising After Squished By It: Regardless of how these Shuyukh could have played the defending game; with itna refering to baaz and without tashbeeh in quantity of prophetic knowledge, or aisa referring to baaz and tashbeeh; comparision in general quantity of baaz but not with specific prophetic quantity of baaz. Or even if they had played chicken with Kufr with one of above Taweels presented by me in 2.1; even then nothing would make their defence of Shaykh Thanvi impregnable. The offense they attempted to lift was beyond their comprehension. They thought with word games we will win the battle against Muslims. Little did they know they can put yeh (i.e. this), or itna and is-qadr (i.e. this-much), and negate or affirm Tashbeeh in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi and play whatever Ibleesi game they wish. As long as Takhseesi statement (i.e. what is so unique about Hadhoor’s sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam knowledge of Ghayb) remains in statement of Shaykh Thanvi the Tashbeeh cannot be negated and equality argument against Hifz ul-Iman cannot be negated. Please read the following part of article carefully it will lay bare all deceptions these Shuyukh have attempted to defend Shaykh Thanvi by dealing with the dispute in most fundamental fashion; by evaluating their arguments in light of basic facts which no rational or sane human could object to. 3.0 -Principles Of Refuting And Establishing Uniqueness In Knowledge: i) Knowledge of X equals Y. In this context X and Y have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other. ii) X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X. In this context X is unique/special out of two because X has greater knowledge. And Y is not unique/special and has no merit above X. iii) X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y. In this scenario X has a merit and is unique/special due greater quantity and qaulity. 3.1 - Knowledge of X equals Y: The first principle: ‘Knowledge of X equals Y.’ Thanvi knows numbers from one to hundred. Gangohi knows numbers from one to hundred. Both know exactly the same amount of numbers therefore if it was said that Shaykh Thanvi isn’t any better, any special it would be correct. Following example illustrates the point:’If it is correct to attribute knowledge of numbers to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this knowledge of numbers, known to Shaykh Thanvi, limited to one to hundered or is it infinite knowledge of numbers. If it is one to hundered then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge of numbers; knowledge like this is even possesed by everyday Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and Shaykh Gangohi.’ Ofcourse this statement is correct; Shaykh Thanvi would has no merit over the mentioned because quantity of his knowledge is same as the rest. From this example we learn; to negate speciality, or uniquess of knowledge there has to be equality in knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi knows 1-100 and so does his family of lunatics, infants, and Shaykh Gangohi; therefore he is not special in knowing numbers. In this context Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other due to equality in quantity. 3.2 - X Is More Knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X: The second principle states: ‘X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X.’ In this scenario we suppose Shaykh Thanvi had Ghayb knowledge of two or twenty matters of Ghayb found in perserved tablet. And all Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of Ghayb. And it exceeds all that is in perserved Tablet. Readers are advised to referr to Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to get details and evidences of Islamic belief. Please study the following statement: ‘Indeed it is correct to attribute knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And upon investigation it became clear it wasn’t of few matters of Ghayb but of all that is in perserved tablet and greater then it. Hence prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special. And if Shaykh Thanvi has knowledge of few matters of Ghayb then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knolwedge of Ghayb in comparision to prophetic knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is even possesed by every day Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and animals.’ Shaykh Thanvi comparatively isn’t special in his knowledge of Ghayb because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows all that is in perserved tablet and more. Therefore in this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique/special because he has greater knowledge; in fact all of knowledge of perserved tablet. And Shaykh Thanvi is not unique/special and has no merit above Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to lack of quantity of his knowledge. 3.3 - X Has Greater Quantity Of Knowledge And Quality Of Knowledge Then Y: Third principle states: ‘X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y.’ Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is Qati (i.e. definitive). Meaning there can be no element of doubt in his knowledge of Ghayb. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) says; Dajjal will be blind in one eye. Then there can be no doubt regarding it: Dajjal will be blind in his eye. Also prophetic knowledge is beyound human counting: Consists of all knowledge of Ghayb in perserved tablet and even greater. Ghayb knowledge of non-Prophets is Zani (i.e. indefinitive/doubtful) however they gain it. The non-Prophets can only have Qatti (i.e. definitive) Ghayb when it has been given to them by a Nabi/Rasool. And the quantity of Zani Ghayb will never be suffient enough merit a challenge to prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or negate speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Now in this context try to understand statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Now if we insert the established facts into the text of Shaykh Thanvi it means: Prophetic Qatti knolwedge of Ghayb, whose quantity is beyond human comprehension is nothing special in comparision to Zani knowledge of Ghayb lunatics, infants, animals whose knowledge is questionable and minute quantity, that’s if they have Ghayb. So in Deobandism; few lunatics, cows, sheeps, infants, animals, about whom we don’t even know they have knowledge of Ghayb, and whose quantity knowledge is worth of two dimes; have managed to negate the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb whose possession of Ghayb, and quantity, and quality is uncontestable and quantity is inumerable by human mind. Now when the greater quantity of knowledge establishes superiority and merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge then greater quality by default will add to speciality and uniquessness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Therefore in this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a merit and is unique/special due to his quality knowledge and due greater quantity of his knowledge. 3.4 - Fundamental Rule Of Establishing And Negating Speciality: From these three principles and their explanantions we derive a basic rule; X has to be compared to Y quantity/type to establish/negate speciality/uniqueness. If the quantity is equal on both sides then comparision yields result; one has no superiority over the other. If one has less and other has greater then comparisions establishes two results: i) one possessing less quantity of knowledge has no superiority over who has greater quantity of knowledge. ii) And one with greater quantity of knowledge is superior to one with lesser knowledge. Hence in statements like of Hifz ul-Iman comparision is essential to establish and negate merit of one over another: And this comparision is in quantity and is inclusive of types of Ghayb knowledge known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 4.0 - Brief Account Of Shuyukh On Hifz ul-Iman’s Controversial Statement: Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani all stated the quantity of prophetic knowledge isn’t being discussed in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In my own words; Shaykh Naumani said there was no Tashbeeh of prophetic Ghayb with Ghayb of lunatics etc. If it was in meaning of Tashbeeh it would be Kufr. Rather the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna. And itna is used without tashbeeh because aisa/itna referrs to baaz Ghayb and not prophetic baaz Ghayb. Shaykh Madani on other hand said there is tashbeeh in statement and Tashbeeh is in prophetic knowledge being compared to baaz Ghayb knowledge and not quanity of baaz prophetic knowledge with baaz quantity x, y, and z. He also indirectly indicated he would consider statement to beKufr if itna was used. This establishes both contradict each other … both indirectly declared each other Kafir but that’s not the point. But they all negated equality in quantity of knowledge. 4.1 - Speciality And Uniqueness Can Only Be Negated Via Comparision: If you recall Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani are of view that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is without Tashbeeh. Even though their own lap-dop aka Shaykh Madani refutes them but it is still important to address it from principle point of view. If a child says; this is sweeter then that one. Has he compared this choclate with that to come to conclusion? An adult says; there is nothing special about this jumper over that jumper. Did the adult compare, one or other quality, to come to this conclusion? You would agree both these statements are result of comparision. Even though words, like, such, as, aren’t used the comparision can be implied because merit/quality is being negated. And for negation/affirmation of any quality/merit in a statement comparative analysis is essential between two parties either by comparing to something materially or via pre-determined criterias of good/bad learnt through experience and knowledge accomulated over time. In this context if we take statement of Shaykh Thanvi: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In here Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in contrast to; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And for him to reach to this understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special in his knowledge, he had to compare prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this Tashbeeh is of quantity and in types of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In addition to this; Shaykh Thanvi used word aisa (i.e. like this) which is used for Tashbeeh even if it is without jaisa (i.e. like this): “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).”[3] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] And in context of rule; establishing or negating any merit/quality of one over another party requires comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) between qualities/merits of party with another. Therefore aisa has to be in meaning of Tashbeeh and it was this realisation which forced Shaykh Madani to accept Islamic position of Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In context of Tashbeeh the statement would mean that author is comparing propheting knowledge of Ghayb with knowledge of those Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Implication of which would be; whatever is the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and qaudrupeds all share his quantity and type of knowledge. 4.2 - Refuting Shaykh Naumani’s; Aisa In Meaning Of Itna Without Tashbeeh: Consider this as; throwing Shaykh Naumani’s argument to dogs along side him. Shaykh argued aisa (i.e. like-this) means itna (i.e. this-much) in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and he referrenced poetical verses and popular usage in which aisa can be taken as subsitute for itna. Even if Shaykh Thanvi didn’t use aisa instead he used itna it would have made no difference because Shaykh Thanvi was negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and foundation of this is Tashbeeh/comparision. Golden rule is to affirm/negate a merit of one explicit/implicit comparision is fundamental. And not to under do the research we have following quote from Deobandi account of debate which affirms itna can too be for Tashbeeh: “It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.”[4] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Note even though author doesn’t accept Shaykh Naumani’s itna in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is for Tashbeeh; but what does the golden rule say? Referr back to it please and then referr to relevent footnote of my article. Thus be it aisa or itna the bottom line is in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman when merit/quality is being negated Tashbeeh is fundamental part of it. In addition to what has already been stated please take special notice of following: To establish speciality of one over another or negate naturally comparision has to be made and comparision can be implied or explicit. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman, aisa (i.e. like-this) has been used, which is always indictive of explicit Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Secondly for comparision there has to be; ‘the compared’1 and ‘the compared to’2. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a ‘quality/attribute’3 in which ‘the compared’ is being compared to ‘the comapred to’. And we find those in Hifz ul-Iman; ‘the compared’ is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And ‘the compared to’ to are Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And the quality is Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of Ghayb). Please note all three components are in statemend of Shaykh Thanvi: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge3 like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds2; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] When all the necessary raw materials of Tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman then to negate it is either illiteracy or a deliberate coordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims. 4.3 - Equality In Quantity Is Essential To Negate Speciality And Uniqueness: Following is rephrasing of first principle: If two are equals one is no better then the other. If Shaykh Thanvi had belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) same of knowledge of Ghayb as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics when one reads the following: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Otherwise Shaykh Thanvi could not have said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no speciality over these mentioned. If he believed in speciality of prophetic knowledge he would not have negated speciality and defended this statement. In the best case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity and in worst case to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds. Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for these two reasons. Please bare in mind principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another via comparision between two parties due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this meaning; it establishes equality in quantity at minimum. And it would be unfair to pass it of as valid possibility. Conclusion: The basic rule regarding statements type of Hifz ul-Iman is; X has to be compared to Y in quantity/type to establish/negate. Without comparision in quantity/type of Ghayb speciality of prophetic Ghayb cannot be negated. And if there is equality in quantity there would be no speciality of one over another. Or if there is less and greater quantity then lesser has no speciality/uniqueness over the greater. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman the structuring of sentence restricts interpretation to; negation of speciality/uniqueness via equality in quantity; and not via prophetic knowledge being less then of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. In this context Shaykh Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman stated; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his baaz quantity of Ghayb knowledge is not special because knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was possessed by Zayd, Amr, animals, lunatics, quadrupeds, and infants. In defence of Shaykh Thanvi Deobandi Shuyukh stated statement is not about equality in quantity nor the author attempted to establish equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani deemed Tashbeeh to be Kufr and said aisa (i.e. like-this) is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) without tashbeeh. And Shaykh Madani said it is in meaning of Tashbeeh if it was itna it would be Kufr. Both these Shuyukh contradicted each other and both considered other Taweeli understanding of Hifz ul-Iman to be Kufr. Unfortunately for Shaykh Thanvi he was the original source of Taweels of Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Naumani. Shaykh Thanvi said indirectly … tashbeeh or itna … statement is perfectly fine. All Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani collectively managed was; Shaykh Thanvi’s both Taweel are Kufr and certified Shaykh Thanvi’s and their own Kufr. Statement like of Hifz ul-Iman mentions two parties … X and Y … X is not special/unique in his Ilm al-Ghayb. Aisa is used for comparision and all raw materials of comparision are in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Party X and party Y and the merit/quality of Ilm al-Ghayb which is being negated via comparision. Negation of speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb via comparision is through equality in quanitity. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] Poor folk were decieved by deception of Bast al-Banan in which Shaykh Thanvi completely denied what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman. Other extreme is that smart Deobandis say Shaykh Thanvi changed the statement in Hifz ul-Iman therefore he cannot be blamed any longer and he is unfairly being targetted. In response to those; Shaykh Thanvi never repented and Shaykh made that clear in Bast al-Banan and Tagheer ul-Unawan. Changing of statement was merely to avoid difficulties faced by his supporters in debates. And Shaykh realised his statement ‘people lacking depth of understanding’ will ‘misunderstand’ and take it to be insulting therefore he agreed to change it. In other words it was effort to reorganise forces for further battle and not acceptance of fault/sin and repentence. - [2] Slightly longer version:“And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] - [3] Shaykh Naumani argued aisa without jaisa is not always for tashbeeh. In response to which Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) gave following speech during his debate with Shaykh Manzoor Naumani: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] Note Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) used aisa on its on to tactfully insult Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani to acknowledge aisa without jaisa is for tashbeeh. Feeling the sting of Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) rebuke Shaykh Naumani couldn’t keep his deception going for too long and said: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] For the remainder of debate Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) enquired from Shaykh Naumani why were his words directed toward Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani insult and not Shaykh Thanvi’s word insult toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? - [4] The compiler and I assume that is Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain said:“It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Shaykh Naumani said aisa with jaisa is surely for tashbeeh because there is no jaisa there is no tashbeeh. And aisa is in meaning of itna. Note in the first example Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain used similar strategy which Shaykh Naumani used. His example is itna with jitna with which he is indicating tashbeeh without jitna cannot exist. Fact is Shaykh Naumani conceeded that there can be tashbeeh without jaisa and footnote 3 of this article is proof of it therefore please refer to it for complete detail. And if you remember then please read the following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] Should I too do itna without jitna and demonstrate itna can be for tashbeeh? It can be said: ‘Shaykh Madani was itna abusive that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani felt like he is an innocent angel in company of Shaykh Madani.’ Implication here is that Mirza al-Kazzab al-Dajjal was abusive but Shaykh Madani was sooOOooO abusive comparision to Mirza; al-Kazzab, al-Dajjal, that Mirza felt he is blameless. Shaykh Rafaqat used two examples lets analyze their reality. Zayd is itna rich jitna Umru. Shaykh Rafaqat agrees it was for tashbeeh. Agar kaha jahay: Zayd bhot maldar heh aur itna hi Umru maldar heh. If it is said: Zayd is very rich and ina (i.e. as-much-as) rich is Umru. Can Shaykh Rafaqat or the clan of defenders of Kufr deny this tashbeeh? Even if the Shayateen disbelieve in tashbeeh the principle makes it clear when merit/quality is being established/negated between two parties in a sentence then tashbeeh is fundamentally part of statement be it implied or explicit. Alhasil; Shaykh Rafaqat can play all games he likes the fundamental rule will not allow him or his ilk evade the evident truth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaykh Madani’s Explanation Of Hifz ul-Iman: Comparision Is In Category Of Limitedness Not In Quantity Of Limited Knolwedge. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a major scholar of Deobandism in his Hifz ul-Iman wrote something which no believer would find acceptable. Ever since it was penned Shaykh Thanvi himself and his supporters have sort to explain away the obvious insult/disrespect directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Out of many Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, a major Deobandi scholar wrote to defend Shaykh Thanvi and published Al-Shihab as-Saqib, best described as Gali Nama (i.e. master piece of abuse). 0.0 - Islamic Belief Regarding Ilm al-Ghayb Of Prophet: Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted Baaz from knowledge of Ghayb. In words of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala); Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is a drop from limitless ocean of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge. And despite this his knowledge of Ghayb is unique and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is special in his knowledge of Ghayb. 0.1 - Glimpse Of Types Of Ghuyubs Known To RasoolAllah: It is unique because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed him paradise and hell. He saw the grapes of paradise and saw parts of hell destroying each other. He saw Amr bin Luhai in hell and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told he started the Sunnah of freeing animals in the name of idol gods.[1] Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold; Syria, Iraq, and Yemen will be conquered by Muslims and Muslims will leave Madinah.[2] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the companions; he can see them behind him just like he can see them when they are infront of him. Nor their concentration in prayer and nor was their bowing is hidden from him.[3] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed about two people being tortured in the graves when he passed by them. And this is report of Ghayb relating to present. He told they are not being punished for minor sins. One being punished for backbiting and other for not being careful and allowing urine drops to soil his clothes. Note he knew their sins of past due to which they were being punished.[4] And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was shown his entire Ummah and the good and bad deeds of his entire nation during his life time.[5] Just from a glimpse it becomes evident prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is unique. And there is no regular Joe, or infant, or lunatic, or animal, or insect with such knowledge of Ghayb. 0.2 - Quantity Of Ghuyub Known To RasoolAllah: Good and bad actions of Ummah were shown to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) during his life time and are presented to him after his passing away.[6] Consider the billions of Muslims and this should tell a Muslim the amount of Ghuyub is known by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also Ahadith establish everything was revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) placed knowledge in chest of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[7] And therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told everything from beginning of creation till entry of people to paradise/hell.[8] And this was because Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was witnessing all that is happening.[9] 1.0 - Actual Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi In Discussion: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 1.1 - Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s Taweel: Shaykh Madani argued in defence of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi; he compared some baaz (i.e. limited/some) with baaz and not quantity of baaz knowledge. In context of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement his explanation would be reflected as follows: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In other words Shaykh Madani is saying; instead of comparing the quantity of baaz knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with baaz quantity of mentioned creations; Shaykh Thanvi just compared baaz knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with baaz knowledge of mentioned creations without comparing great quantity of prophetic knowledge with minute knowledge of others. 1.2 – The Right Questions And the Important Answer: Question arises what would be the outcome if this interpretation of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad is right and believed? And what does it mean regarding character of Shaykh Thanvi if this interpretation is true? Would Shaykh Madani earn a badge of honor and Shaykh Thanvi go free of blame of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Lets begin with telling you; don’t have your hopes too high about Shaykh Madani’s scholarships and definitely not his smarts (i.e. intelligence). 1.3 - Shaykh Madani’s Taweel In Hifz ul-Iman: Note words in green are not part of original TEXT but are inserted to convey interpretation of Shaykh Madani. In light of Shaykh Madani’s Taweel the statement will be read: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Even though the natural meaning conveys comparision between Baaz quantity of prophetic Ghayb and Baaz Ghayb of creations he mentioned; please ignore it. Just pretend and go along; Shaykh Madani was correct in his understanding. 1.4 - Shaykh Madani’s Taweel And Its Application On Shaykh Thanvi: As per interpretation of Shaykh Madani the implications are; Shaykh Thanvi wants to negate uniquesness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb by comparing category of Baaz with Baaz. Without getting into detail of how much each Baaz translates to for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and for mentioned creations. And without comparing the type of knowledge of Ghayb which is established for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The following demonstrates what Shaykh Madani is saying: If it is some knowledge then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s some knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is known to every idiot, dumb mummal, Kafir, and even Fir’awn had some knowledge. Or if someone wants to negate uniqueness of Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge by saying: What is so unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s limited knowledge of Islam even infants possess limited knowledge of Islam. Please note quantity of limited/some isn’t being compared but just the Nafs (i.e. being, or word) of Baaz (i.e. limited, some) is compared. Question; Is this fair way of determining uniqueness of Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge? 2.0 - Response To Argument: Compared In Limitedness Not In Quantity: Shaykh Madani’s argument is; Shaykh Thanvi compared limited knowledge without making, directly or indirectly, the quantity of limited knowledge part of his statement found in Hifz ul-Iman. Shaykh Madani either lacked the smarts (i.e. intelligence) or was just being typical Deobandi. And my accessment is smarts was not his problem but his love/respect of Shaykh Thanvi exceded the love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Because even those who have spent two years in Madrassa will be able to tell you speciality and uniqueness cannot be established and cannot be negated without inserting quantity, type and quality of knowledge into equation. If Shaykh Thanvi had not questioned the speciality/uniqueness and had not compared prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with lunatics, infants, animals, Zaid, Amr and not negated speciality of prophetic knowledge: Then quantity argument of Shaykh Madani would have been valid. 2.1 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Equality In Limited Knowledge Established: If Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was without aisa (i.e. like-this) and following part of sentence was omitted: “… in this what is so unique about Hadhoor …”. Then it would have been worded in following way: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended then in this; what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” It would have been acceptable and Shaykh Madani’s point would have been valid that Tashbeeh is in Nafs (i.e. category) of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz. But Shaykh Thanvi questioned uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and compared it with; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds and infants in limitedness of Ghayb. And all this to negate speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his prophetic knowledge. To determine or to negate speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge Shaykh Thanvi had to compare the quantity etc. If he believed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was far greater then Zaid, Amr, lunatics, infants, animals then there would be speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and and he would have automatically come to conclusion that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi denied speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and that can only be it if he considered/believed the prophetic knowledge to be equal to mentioned creations: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …”Al-Hasil -: Equality in quantity, type and quality of knowledge is indirectly was implied by Shaykh Thanvi to come to his conclusion. If he had not implied equality into his text his conclusion could not have been against speciality but pro-speciality/uniqueness. The principle of determining speciality/uniqueness in knowledge and Shaykh Thanvi’s conclusion is source of equality in quantity argument. 3.0 - Moral Question And Principle Of Establishing Uniqueness: To establish uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb it is wrong to compare his superior knowledge with knowledge of inferiors. The correct method is to compare lowers knowledge with superiors knowledge. In other words to establish uniqueness one should not do as follow; infant knows Tajweed and Shaykh Thanvi knows Tajweed therefore Shaykh Thanvi is not special. The right course of action is that; Shaykh Thanvi knows, Tajweed, Tafsir, Hadith, Arabic, rules of Sarf and Nawh etc. The child only knows Tajweed but due to all other knowledge Shaykh Thanvi is unique in his knowledge. In other words uniquesness in knowledge is determined by quantity of knoweldge and type of knowledge and not through word play; category of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb vs category Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. The speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is established by type of Ghuyub he knows and quantity of these Ghuyub and quality of these Ghuyub. 3.1 - Blame On Shaykh Thanvi Through Interpretation Of Shaykh Madani: It is obvious uniquesness/speciality of one individual’s knowledge over another is established through the type of Ghuyub known to him and quantity of Ghuyub. What type of person would use such under handed tactic to negate speciality/uniqueness Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghyb knowledge over insignifcants mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi? What I mean is you need to consider: What kind of Iblees would not use quantity and type knowledge to determine uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over lunatics, infants, animals, and quadrupeds: A person who loves and respects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or Shaytaan al-Laheen who deliberately wants to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using this under-handed tactic? And suppose Shaykh Madani wrongly understood the intent of Shaykh Thanvi then just imagine what kind of Iblees would understand the statement in such a way and consider it acceptable? A righteous believer or cursed Iblees? I leave the judgment for the readers. 3.2 - Equating Prophetic Knowledge With Knowledge Of Insignificants: According to Shaykh Madani; Shaykh Thanvi compares baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with baaz knowledge of Ghayb of infants and lunatics. It is true having baaz knowledge of Ghayb is not unique but the type and quantity Ghayb knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted is unique to Prophets and especially to him. Knowledge of Quran/Wahi was Ghayb and was unique to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Which infant, or lunatic, or animal, or regular Joe shared any part of it without his delivering it? And some evidence relating to this was already presented. Using Shaykh Madani’s logic if someone says; what is so unique about face of Shaykh Thanvi; face like of this even is possed by Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, pigs, dogs, and donkeys. Expectedly Deobandi’s would be upset and accuse me of following the Sunnah of Shaykh Madani. But my defence would be in accordance with logic of Shaykh Madani: I merely compared Nafs of face with faces of mentioned and not type of faces; therefore no insult was meant because having face is not unique. Natural implication of which is that Shaykh Thanvi’s face is like the faces of mentioned. Rest assured none of them will buy tolerate or accept this Taweel because one of their own is being insulted. But Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insulted their hearts don’t even percieve it and they preferr distortions of their scholars over what they know to be truth. Conclusion: To begin with; to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to argue there is no uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over the insignicants mentioned is disrespectful. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman if judged in light of Shaykh Madani’s Taweel then Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of employing unwarranted methodology of underminding merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. And a Muslim can imagine what type of person would go to such length as to compare Baaz without comparing quanity of Baaz Ghayb knowledge of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with animals, infants, and lunatics! All this so he can establish there is nothing special about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knolwedge: A righteous believer who loves/respects Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or a disgusting Kafir impersonating to be Muslim; with no love/respect for the Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guides whom He wills. Wama alayna ilal balalghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] “Narrated Aisha: Once the sun eclipsed and Allah's Messenger stood up for the prayer and recited a very long Sura and when bowed for a long while and then raised his head and started reciting another Sura. Then he bowed, and after finishing, he prostrated and did the same in the second rak`a and then said, "These (lunar and solar eclipses) are two of the signs of Allah and if you see them, pray till the eclipse is over. No doubt, while standing at this place I saw everything promised to me by Allah and I saw (Paradise) and I wanted to pluck a bunch (of grapes) therefrom, at the time when you saw me stepping forward. No doubt, I saw Hell with its different parts destroying each other when you saw me retreating and in it I saw `Amr bin Luhai who started the tradition of freeing animals (set them free) in the name of idols." [Ref: Bukhari, B22, H303] - [2]“Sufyan b. Abd Zuhair reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Syria will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels. and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Yemen will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Iraq will be conquered and some people will go out of it along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3200] - [3] "It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet used to say: "Make your rows straight, make your rows straight, make your rows straight. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I can see you behind me as I can see you in front of me." [Ref: Nisai, B10, H814] "It was narrated from Anas that: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Bow and prostrate properly, for by Allah I can see you from behind my back when you bow and prostrate.'" [Ref: Nisai, B12, H1118] "Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ( may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Do you see the direction I am facing here? By Allah, neither your concentration nor your ruku is hidden from me. I can see you behind my back." [Ref: Muwatta.I.Malik, B9, H73] - [4] "Bahr bin Marrar narrated that his grandfather Abu Bakrah said: "The Messenger of Allah passed by two graves, and he said: 'They are being punished but they are not being punished for anything major. One of them is being punished because of urine, and the other is being punished because of backbiting.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H349] “Narrated Ibn Abbas:Once the Prophet went through the grave-yards of Medina and heard the voices of two humans who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, "They are being punished, but they are not being punished because of a major sin, yet their sins are great. One of them used not to save himself from (being soiled with) the urine, and the other used to go about with calumnies (Namima)." Then the Prophet asked for a green palm tree leaf and split it into two pieces and placed one piece on each grave, saying, "I hope that their punishment may be abated as long as these pieces of the leaf are not dried." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H81] - [5] “It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] - [6] “It was narrated from Abu Dhār that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] “Narrated Sulayman bin Harb, Hammad bin Zaid, Ghalib al Qattan, Bakr bin Abdullah al-Muzani: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: My life is good for you [because] Hadith are narrated for you and you narrate them. When I die then in my death there is good for you [because] your actions are presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah and if I see otherwise I will seek forgive for you from Allah.” [Ref: Khasa’is Ul Kubra, Imam Suyuti, pages 391/392.] - [7] "Narrated Abdur Rahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed His palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3245, Tafsir Surah Sad] "Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3246, Tafsir Surah Sad] - [8] “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] “Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence). Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] - [9] "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Refutation Of Taweel Of Hifz Ul-Iman: Shaykh Madani's Argument Aisa Is Of Tashbeeh And Tashbeeh Is In A Single Trait. Introduction: Shaykh Madani defends his senior Shaykh Ashrat Ali Thanvi saying; as per rules of Tashbeeh it can only be in a single quality. And he argues Tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman is in category of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz [Ilm al-Ghayb]. He believes if itna was used instead of aisa then then statement of Hifz ul-Iman would be objectionable but aisa of Tashbeeh is used. Also he stated quantity of prophetic knowledge is not being discussed in Hifz ul-Iman. All of these excuses are being exmployed to vindicate Shaykh Thanvi from blame of Kufr and insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This article will attempt to look into matter if Shaykh Madani was successful in his effort or has failed miserably. “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 0.1 - Shaykh Madani’s Deception Under Microscope: Shaykh Madani has stated about Hifz ul-Iman’s statement: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa but did not state word itna. If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] He negates usage of itna because he understands if it was itna instead of aisa then statement would establish eqaulity in quantity of prophetic knowledge and the mentioned creations. In another place Shaykh Madani writes: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where Tashbeeh is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] Shaykh Madani; Aisa is for Tashbeeh and goes on to say Tashbeeh is not in every aspect and in this Shaykh Thanvi agrees with Shaykh Madani. And then Shaykh states therefore the Tashbeeh is in Nafs (i.e. category) of Baaz and not in quantity of Baaz. And in another place Shaykh writes:“Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz and discussion is about of it (baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that Tashbeeh is in the Nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of Baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] 0.2 - Objective Of Shaykh Madani Plain And Simple: There are two objectives of Shaykh Madani: i) He is attempting to argue; in principle Tashbeeh is in a single trait and not in many traits therefore the Tashbeeh is only in category of Baaz. In other words aisa returns to category of Baaz and not to Baaz Ilm of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And he is attempting to refute quantity argument. If his argument is believed then Tashbeeh would mean; type and quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is possessed by mentioned creations. ii) Aisa is for Tashbeeh and Itna is for quantity; and due to gramatical structuring if it was itna in statement then Tashbeeh of Baazi’at would return to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Thanvi would be saying; prophetic quantity of knowledge is possessed by the mentioned creations. So Shaykh Madani is attempting to refute this by denying Aisa not meaning Itna. Unfortunately for Shaykh Aisa is used in meaning of Itna and in sense of Tashbeeh. 1.0 - Tashbeeh In Two Aspects - Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement Is Exception To Rule: If we grant Shaykh Madani the argument; Tashbeeh is in single aspect and not in many traits. He states that Tashbeeh is in category of Mutliq Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. Nafs of Baazi’at) and not in quantity of Mutliq Ilm al-Ghayb. Islamic response to Shaykh Madani would be; if the controversial statement of Hifz ul-Iman is read apparently, without diving into depth, and if statement is understood in parts and not as whole, then Tashbeeh is in two places. The first and apparent [and the easily acessible] Tashbeeh is between category of Baaz of mentioned creations and of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In second and the actual Tashbeeh is between Baaz quantity of knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and quantity of Ghayb knowledge of mentioned creations. It is correct that Tashbeeh is always in a single aspect and it is between where ‘the compared’ and ‘the compared to’ have a common ‘trait’. Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Madani should have known and are educated better because statement of Hifz ul-Iman even if Tashbeeh is in Nafs of Baazi’at (i.e. category of Baaz) even then due to negation of Takhsees (i.e. speciality, or uniqueness) of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in Nafs of Baazi’at the natural meaning would be Tashbeeh in equal quantity between ‘the compared’ and ‘compared to’ because Takhsees could only be negated by Shaykh Thanvi if assumed prophetic knowledge was equal in Nafs of Baazi’at to creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi or less then knowledge Ghayb knowledge of mentioned creations. If he believed prophetic knowledge was definitive as well as greater in quantity then he could not have negated Takhsees. His negation of Takhsees establishes there is another Tashbeeh but less apparent and it is of equality in quantity in category of Baaz not just only in category of Baaz. Even though the second Tashbeeh has been mentioned as second in reality there is just one Tashbeeh because Tashbeeh of equal quantity is part of same statement and because quantity however great/little it maybe it is still in category of Baaz. Imagine it as many parts coming togather to make a car. Despite the large quantity of parts they all assemble to make one car. In similar fashion Shaykh Thanvi’s statement has two parts and both come togahter to establish actual meaning of his statement; Tashbeeh of equal qauntity in category of Baaz. 1.1 – Equality Due To Exageration Or Equality Due To Detracting: It is established Shaykh Thanvi’s statement establishes equality between prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. This high lights another problem; which the minions of Iblees will have to answer to. Incase Shaykh Thanvi believes prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is of countless matters of Ghayb (note; countless in human counting but still limited). Then the established equality will be in; Shaykh elevated the lower creations, with Zanni knowledge, of few matters of Ghayb, to rank of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb, which is Qatti, and consists of all that is in perserved Tablet and greater. In this case Shaykh Thanvi would be guilty of bolstering knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds via exagerating/mubalgha to negate merit of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. And that does not mean anything good. Imagine in order to refute merit of Shaykh Thanvi a certain Dharbangi bolster the standing of Iblees and says; there is nothing special about Shaykh Thanvi’s piety even Iblees is pious like him. Zanni cannot be equal of Qatti and one with knowledge of perseved tablet cannot be equal to one who knows few matters of Zanni Ghayb knowledge. Just like a Muslim who only says; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah; is better then Iblees even if other righteous actions are not considered. Other alternative is that Shaykh believes; prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is insignificant and knowledge of mentioned creations is insignificant also hence there is equality. And this is no better alternative for the reasons of quantity and quality mentioned before i.e. Qatti and of perserved tablet. 1.2 - Logic Behind Islamic Understanding Of Tashbeeh In Hifz ul-Iman: Islamic response to Shaykh Madani would be; Aisa can be returned for Tashbeeh to; i) Baaz Ghayb, ii) knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the first scenario Aisa is returned to Baaz Ghayb for Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if Baaz2 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Question is; whose knowledge is this limited (i.e. Baaz) Ghayb referring to? And Shaykh knows and acknowledges it referrs to limited knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of Zayd Amr; infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. Incase the minions of Iblees incarnate negate this fact then please see the following section 2.0. And we already know Takhsees of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was negated in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. And negation of Ilm al-Ghayb’s merit for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can only be, in context of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement, if Shaykh Thanvi also; compared (or; made Tashbeeh of) Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb with Zayd Amr; infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds and came to conclusion his knowledge was equale in quantity to mentioned creations. Therefore there are multiple Tashbeehs in statement of Shaykh Thanvi from this perspective. In the second scenario Aisa is returned to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to be specific to his Ghayb knowledge for Tashbeeh: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] There are two possibilities: A) If Tashbeeh of Aisa returns to Ilm Ghayb of creations via Hadhoor then Tashbeeh is between prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. B) If Tashbeeh of Aisa returns to Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb via Hadhoor then Tashbeeh is between prophetic Baaz knowledge of Ghayb and between Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor2 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa1 Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In case of A one has to imply Baaz to fully understand the statement and in case of B one has to imply; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. And in both cases the Takhsees of Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being negated. And negation of it can only be if there is Tashbeeh between: 1) Ghayb knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and quadrupeds. 2) And if there is Tashbeeh in equal quantity of Ilm al-Ghayb. There are multiple Tashbeehs in statement of Shaykh Thanvi which no sane person can deny. And all have to be accounted to understand the statement properly. 2.0 - Response To: Itna Would Be Problematic But It Is Aisa: If the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is read and understood as whole; even then like the previous section; Tashbeeh is in quantity of Baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and between quantity of mentioned creations. Readers should note that Shaykh Madani is actually attempting to refute the very point that Tashbeeh isn’t in quantity of Baaz Ghayb. The reason Shaykh Madani negates this understanding is; he argues statement is not in meaning of Itna; if it was then it would be problematic because there would be equality in quantity: “… that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa but did not state word itna. If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things…” Due to Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ghayb; Aisa cannot only be in comparative meaning of likeness (i.e. misl) but it is also in comparative meaning of Itna (i.e. this-much): “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Itna Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please note; usage of Aisa in context of quantity being compared by default establishes Aisa is in meaning of Itna. Continuing; even though Shaykh Madani negates the statement is in meaning of Itna and is-Qadr (i.e. this-much) yet other major Deobandi scholars have understood it to be in meaning of Itna/Is-qadr. 2.1 - Aisa In Meaning Of Itna: Madani VS Naumani And Darbhangi: Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan which is a follow-up five page book from Hifz ul-Iman hinted toward aisa being used in meaning of itna but without implying Tashbeeh: “From this discussion we learn that in the mentioned statement knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not been compared/equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Umru and others. And the word aisa is not used every time for Tashbeeh. According people who speak the lanugage they use it popularly in; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is aisa powerful. So in this is there intention to compare the power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with another? No! Not at all …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Following Shaykh Thanvi’s lead; Shaykh Naumani is reported to have said in debate that aisa is in meaning of itna: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore not in tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] Shaykh Naumani in following example presented two examples in which aisa is used to mean itna: “You have asked me to provide evidence of aisa being used in meaning of itna linguistically and in popular culture. Indeed this demand of yours is legitimate. Listen! Ameer Minahai (the blessed) in his; Ameer ul-Lughaat, Volume two, page 302 has presented a perfect/detailed research on usage of word aisa. And has mentioned few meanings. From all of them one meaning which I have mentioned. In this situation following is his statement: ‘AISA; (means) itna, is-qadr. SENTENCE: Aisa mara keh adh mowa kar deeya.[1] POETICAL VERSE: Us bada-kash ka jism hey aisa lateef wa saaf.[2] Zana par ghuman hey moj e sharab ka.’ (Barq). There you go now I have established from linguistics that aisa is used without Tashbeeh in meaning of itna.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77/78, here.] Also Shaykh Darbhangi says aisa has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr:“It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] In 1.0 it was established through sound reasoning aisa is in meaning of itna. Readers should note; Shaykh Naumani gave referrences and examples in which aisa has been used to mean itna. 2.2 - Shaykh Madani Negates Itna And The Reason Behind It: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) alleged that Shaykh Thanvi equaled prophetic knowledge to creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.” [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here.] Shaykh Madani mentioned this on page 277 of his book. And charge of Kufr issued by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat was on basis of equality in quantity of knowledge. In Shihab as-Saqib Shaykh Madani is attempting to refute this charge of that Shaykh Thanvi established equality in quantity in Ghuyub of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of creations mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement. And in this context Shaykh Madani negates Itna in following statement: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much). If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] This leads to conclusion; according to Shaykh Madani Itna’s usage would have established equality in quantity of knowledge [and he believes its absence negates charge of equality in quantity]. Now there isn’t explicit usage of Itna in Hifz ul-Iman but there is equality in quantity of knowledge, see 1.0, underlined. And therefore grametical usage of aisa is in meaning of Itna. Note even though Itna wasn’t used but the meaning which Shaykh Madani assumed for Itna (i.e. equality in quantity) is present in Aisa hence Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel of Aisa meaning Itna is valid. And with Itna established via Aisa then Fatwah of Kufr issued by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, which Shaykh Madani attempted to refute by negating equality in quantity of knowledge remains valid. 3.0 - Response To Shaykh’s Claim Tashbeeh Is In Category Of Limited Ghayb: Shaykh Madani claims; Tashbeeh was in category of Baaz and not in quantity of prophetic knowledge. When ever there is Tashbeeh; the Tashbeeh is between two things, living or dead, and a quality, or trait, or characteristic which both share. If it is said; Ali is powerful like a lion. The basic premise is; Ali is like lion. And the likeness is in being powerful. If one says: No! No! The Tashbeeh is not between Ali and lion because the word like in the sentence returns to powerfullness and not to Ali. Any sane person would realize the Tashbeeh by nature is between two beings it cannot be between a trait and a person. The fundamental of Tashbeeh are two beings who share a trait. If a being is missing then there is no Tashbeeh. If it is said; Ali is powerful like. And no other being is mentioned then sentence is wrong. And if another is mentioned but claims phrase; Ali is powerful like lion doesn’t mean; Ali is like a lion in power. Then be confident in declaring the distorter as a minor Dajjal. Similarly in context of Hifz ul-Iman’s Tashbeeh; there is mention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and mentions of creations, and a common quality between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and creations, and that quality is Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. Therefore the basic premise is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is like; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals quadrupeds. And this likeness is in that they share quality of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. And if one only says: No! No! The Tashbeeh is in quality of Baazi’at and not with RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then he is actually negating Tashbeeh because he negates the fundamental requrement of Tashbeeh – i.e. sharing of trait between two beings. 3.1A - Incident Of Mother Of Believers And She Took Tashbeeh And Equality: It is recorded in Ahadith:“Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah!” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493] “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not …” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486] The fact that Umm ul-Momineen Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) took offense when women were mentioned with amongst the list of animals (i.e. dog, donkey). Note even though the speaker did not compare women with the animals and nor did the companion say; women are unclean like the mentioned animals yet she implied Tashbeeh/comparision and took offense because she felt women were being considered impure like the mentioned animals. 3.1B – Hifz ul-Iman Statement Is Offensive Irrespective: Comparatively to Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) incident, Shaykh Madani claims, Tashbeeh was in category of Baaz and not in Baaz quantity of prophetic knowledge. In other words Shaykh Madani acknowledges there is obvious Tashbeeh in category of Baaz knowledge of Ghayb. Statement of Hifz ul-Iman reads as follows: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Aisa Baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) case; words did not denote Tashbeeh in impurity of animals but women were only mentioned along side dog and donkey and she implied Tashbeeh of impurity and equality. Shaykh Thanvi explicitly uses words which denote Tashbeeh. And Tashbeeh, in words of Shaykh Madani, in category of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb with mentioned animals. When obvious facts are that Tashbeeh is category of Baaz then wouldn’t it just be wise to acknowledge that Tashbeeh in category of Baaz is insulting and disrespectful even if the Tashbeeh is not in quantity of Baaz! Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) was very finely tuned to understand insult and disrespect as the example demonstrates. Just by the fact that Shaykh Thanvi mentioned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the list of, Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds, would have been enough for her to take note of insult/disrespect. To even think she would have accepted prophetic knowledge being compared even in Nafs of Baazi’at with the mentioned is unthinkable. Conclusion: Shaykh Madani referrenced principle of Tashbeeh saying; Tashbeeh is in single trait, quality, attribute and not more then one. And he goes on to cite number of examples of on page two-hundered-eighty-two. And this principle is indeed true but Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is contructed in such a fashion where it is impossible to avoid Tashbeeh in quantity of Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. And it is Tashbeeh of equal quantity between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Shaykh Madani understanding is; if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would have been justifiably criticised but aisa has been used. According to Shaykh Naumani’s Taweel, for which he has a valid basis, aisa has been used in meaning of itna but his saying itna is without Tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is just an attempt at pious deception. And it was established that how and why aisa means itna, and its usage would be with Tashbeeh. So Shaykh Madani’s pack of lies was undermined by negation of Takhsees, by Shaykh Naumani’s demonstration how aisa is employed, and by his own assumption that itna would establish equality in quantity. Therefore the Kufr in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and Fatwah of Kufr on Shaykh Thanvi remains without a valid Taweel. And one who defends Kufr of a Kafir is also Kafir. And Shaykh Madani is like Shaykh Thanvi. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] It can mean: Struck him so-much that nearly killed him. And means: Struck in like-this that nearly killed him. The context determines how the phrase is to be understood. In the context of example; it is employed in meaning of itna/is-qadr hence the first meaning is intended. - [2] It roughly means: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so-much delicate and blemish-less.’ Better rendering of it in English would be: ‘That alcahol drinkers body is so delicate and belmeish-less.’ Yet the problem for Shaykh Naumani is; in the poetical verse of looser aka Barq; even if aisa is taken to mean itna; the goal of refuting Tashbeeh cannot be achieved because Barq is comparing blemishless-ness and delicateness of figure with female figure. This proves even itna can be used for Tashbeeh. So if statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of itna even then Tashbeeh contextually cannot be negated.

Disrespect And Insult Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallm) In Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi's Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a Deobandi scholar is a controversial personality. Scholars like of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) deem him to be Kafir due to Shaykh Thanvi writing a statement which insults Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This brief article will attempt to explain how Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is disrespectful and insults Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Insulting And Disrespectful Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Negates Uniqueness And Compares Prophetic Ghayb: There are two important features of his statement: i) Shaykh Thanvi negates uniqueness/speciality of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) via his knowledge of Ghayb. ii) In order to negate/refute speciality of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb Shaykh compares his knowledge of Ghayb with Zayd and Amr (i.e. regular Joe’s), infants, lunatics, and animals of all types. Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) Reaction When Counted Amongst Destables: It is recorded in Ahadith if dog, donkey, and a woman pass infront of person performing Salah then it would be invalidated: “It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “The prayer is severed by a woman, a dog and a donkey.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H950] “It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Mughaffal that the Prophet said: “The prayer is severed by a woman, a dog and a donkey.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H951] When this was mentioned presence of wife of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) she took exception to mention/inclusion of women into this; as it is established from following Hadith: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have made our (women) comparision with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493] Please note the mere mention of women in the list of unclean animals offended her and took it to mean women are being compared with animals. Shaykh Thanvi explicitly compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through his knowledge with the mentioned: “… Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” First of all to even mention Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) amongst the mentioned is insulting and disrespectful. By comparing RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with mentioned even in knowledge denotes Shaykh Thanvi deemed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be equale and like the mentioned in knowledge. Insult And Disrespect Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): To put it into perspective of UK incident. Recently went for a hair cut. Not having much to do while waiting for my turn I decided to pic news paper and read. What I read in it prompted me to come home and YouTube said incident to see what the fuss was about. A young boy, Ned Woodman, tiny comedian. His first insult/pun began: Why were people so excited to see the talking dog on the Britian’s Got Talent? Amanda Holden has been on it for years. The audience gasped and judges gasped with mouths wide open. What he insinuated was obvious: He called one of talent show judge as a talking dog. If you logically follow what he said then; he implied people are not excited about Amanda Holden talking on BGT then there is no cause for being excited about talking dog being on BGT. Ofcourse there is an argument to be made in defence of Ned Woodman but the easily accessible and first impression cannot be defended. Deobandis too feel there is justification and Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is defendable and so they attempt it. But they cannot escape the injunctions resulted from following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Shaykh Thanvi compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with mentioned due to his knowledge and little Ned Woodman compared Amanda to talking dog because of her talking. The apparent and easily accessible implication of second is; Ned called her talking dog. So what should the conclusion be with regards to Shaykh Thanvi comparing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to mentioned in knolwedge? That Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a infant in knowledge, lunatic in his knowledge and no better then infants and lunatics in knowledge. Astaghfir ullah ul-azeem. How can this not be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! Comparing To Destable And Unclean Is For Insulting And Disrespect: If one says; Shaykh Thanvi is a human being like Dajjal. Or says; Shaykh Thanvi is like village idiot in knowledge of Tajweed. Shaykh Thanvi and cursed Dajjal are both human beings and in being human being they are like each other. By comparing him to a an enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) even in Bashariyyah (i.e. humaness) indicates Shaykh is being insulted. Shaykh Thanvi may have equal knowledge of Tajweed, plus/minus bits, like a village idiot but to compare him to an idiot is to insult him. Shaykh Thanvi compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his knowledge to animals, infants, lunatics, every day Joe’s, unclean carnivorous animals in his following statement: “… Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Yes he may not have intended to do so but from his statement he is indeed guilty of disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In our daily language we compare people with detestables to insult or to imply an insult. We say; stop eating like a pig. Even though it means stop eating too much. Is that appropriate way of putting it? Ojbective behind is to degrade through comparision in order to achieve the objective – i.e. eating less. So when Shaykh Thanvi compares prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lunatics and infants the primary objective is to degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh wants to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prevent Muslims from believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) is Aalim ul-Ghayb. From his perspective; when the Muslims realize there is nothing special about his knowledge of Ghayb in comparision to lunatics and infants then there is no reason to hold to the belief at all. Conclusion: Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman compares Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to infants, lunatics, regular Joe’s, herbivores and carnivores. And it is matter of principle; when a superior is compared to detestable, unclean, and it results a merit being negated then insult is always meant. Also merely being mentioned amongst the list of donkey, dog, and pig is enough to indicate insult and disrespect but when a great personality is compared to inferior merit of lowly then insult is always meant. Shaykh Thanvi compared the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through his prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lowly and disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Thanvi was indeed guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and is guilty of negating uniqueness oprophetic knowledge of Ghayb in comparision to infants, lunatics, animals, and regular Joe’s. And fact is prophetic knowledge is unique and special and how and why is for another article. Wama alayna ilal-balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Implications Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Baaz And Ba-wasta Categorisation On Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman. Introduction: Questioner enquired from Shaykh Thanvi about one who believes RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. knower of Ghayb) and believes knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is ba-wasta (i.e. through means). While responding to the questioner Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a founding father of Deobandism made a very distasteful and disrespectful statement about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghayb knowledge. In order to negate the uniqueness of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he compared the knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with knowledge of Ghayb of; infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds, Zaid and Amr. Effort will be made to make clear the sort of Ghuyub inclusive of ba-wasta/baaz and how they effect the meaning of his already offensive statement. Relevent Statements Of Hifz ul-Iman: “A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Knowledge of Ghayb is bil-Zaat , in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb. And ba-wasta (i.e. bil-Ardh, with means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] “Shar’ri application of Mutliq Ghayb (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of comprehension. On this [stated] foundation it has been stated (in Quran): "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means (i.e. ba-wasta) on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here] “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Termonologies Employed And How They Are In Agreement: Bil-Zaat (بالذات, i.e. of Self) is opposite of Bil-A’rdh (بالعرض, i.e. through means). Bil-Zaat is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Bil-A’rdh is for creation. Bila-Wasta (بلاوسطہ , i.e. without means) is opposite of Ba-wasta (بواسطہ , i.e. with means). Bila-Wasta is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Ba-wasta is for creation. Mutliq (مطلق , i.e. boundless/limitless) is opposite of Muqayyid (مقيد , i.e. restricted). Mutliq is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Muqayyid is for His creation. Baaz (بعض, i.e. partial, some) is opposite of Qull (کل, i.e. all, every). Termonologies Used For Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) And His Creation: The terminologies of; bil-Zaat, bila-Wasta, Qull and Mutliq are for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and following are used for creation including RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); bil-Ardh, bil-Wasta, Baaz, and Muqayyid. Scholarly Practice One From Set Is Entire Set In Context Of Tawheed: By employing one or another scholars tend to indicate entire set. So even though Shaykh Thanvi and questioner used different terminologies both are actually referring to same Ghayb. Precision Nazi’s should note questioner mentioned, بواسطہ, and, بالذات. Shaykh used, بواسطہ, and, مطلق. And in the problematic statement he used, بعض. Questioner and Shaykh used Ba-wasta and Shaykh in problematic statement used Baaz for knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In light of this both Baaz and Ba-wasta will be inserted into context. The word difference of Ba-wasta and Baaz means has no real significance because both referr to same knowledge of Ghayb and it will be established ahead. Detail Of Ba-wasta Type Of Ghayb: Ba-wasta means, through means, via means, and such knowledge of Ghayb can be gained through supernatural sight and hearing, and be informed by another. In detail of ba-wasta it is important to point out that there are three main types of ba-wasta type of Ghuyub: i) Akhbar e Ghayb (i.e. news of Ghayb), ii) Mushayda e Ghayb (i.e. seeing of Ghayb), iii) Sama’at e Ghayb (i.e. hearing of Ghayb). Note all knowledge of Ghayb is ba-Atah (i.e. with granting) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) including ba-wasta (i.e. with means) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants through means of His choosing. In the next section each type of Ghayb will be briefly explained with its evidences. News Of Ghayb: There are verses of Quran which clearly and emphatically state Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) received news of Ghayb: “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” [Ref: 3:44] “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you, you knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this. So be patient; indeed, the (best) outcome is for the righteous.” [Ref: 11:49] “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they put together their plan while they conspired.” [Ref: 12:102] Yet the foremost evidence for this type of Ghayb is Quran because entire Quran is news/report from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Say, "I do not know if what you are promised is near or if my Lord will grant for it a (long) period." (25) (He is) Knower of the Ghayb (i.e. hidden), and He does not disclose His (knowledge of the) Ghayb to anyone.(26) Except whom He has approved as Messengers, and indeed, He sends before each Messenger and behind him observers.(27) That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.”(28) [Ref:72:25/27] There are two interpretationf of these verses.[1] If verse 26 is understood in context of verse 26, 27, and 28, then Ghayb is Quran. And interpretation is: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the knower of Ghayb (i.e. Aalim ul-Ghayb) grants knowledge of Ghayb to Messengers and accompanies them with angels so Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows that the Prophets convey the Message of Ghayb,Wahi/revelation, Quran in context of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also another verse which reffers to revelation/Wahi, which eventually resulted in Quran, hence establishing Quran is part of Ghuyub known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Nor would Allah reveal to you the unseen. But (instead), Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers. And if you believe and fear Him, then for you is a great reward.” [Ref: 3:179] Also Ahadith record Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold everything to take place till the day of judgment: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] “Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence). Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] This is one of the miracles of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). These two Ahadith establish the amount of knowledge of Ghayb RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possessed. Seeing Of Ghayb: While Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was leading companions in prayers he saw paradise and the grapes in it and saw hell and Amr bin Luhai in it: “These (lunar and solar eclipses) are two of the signs of Allah and if you see them, pray till the eclipse is over. No doubt, while standing at this place I saw everything promised to me by Allah and I saw (Paradise) and I wanted to pluck a bunch (of grapes) therefrom, at the time when you saw me stepping forward. No doubt, I saw Hell with its different parts destroying each other when you saw me retreating and in it I saw `Amr bin Luhai who started the tradition of freeing animals (set them free) in the name of idols." [Ref: Bukhari, B22, H303] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw behind him as he saw with his eyes and sincerity of peoples hearts was not concealed from him as the following Ahadith establish: "It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet used to say: "Make your rows straight, make your rows straight, make your rows straight. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I can see you behind me as I can see you in front of me." [Ref: Nisai, B10, H814] "It was narrated from Anas that: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Bow and prostrate properly, for by Allah I can see you from behind my back when you bow and prostrate.'" [Ref: Nisai, B12, H1118] "Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ( may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Do you see the direction I am facing here? By Allah, neither your concentration nor your ruku is hidden from me. I can see you behind my back." [Ref: Muwatta.I.Malik, B9, H73] Other Ahadith establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was shown good/bad deeds of his entire Ummah during his life time and he will be shown the good/bad deeds of his Ummah after his deparths from earthly life: “It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] “Narrated Sulayman bin Harb, Hammad bin Zaid, Ghalib al Qattan, Bakr bin Abdullah al-Muzani: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: My life is good for you [because] Hadith are narrated for you and you narrate them. When I die then in my death there is good for you [because] your actions are presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah and if I see otherwise I will seek forgive for you from Allah.” [Ref: Khasa’is Ul Kubra, Imam Suyuti, pages 391/392.] He also saw everything to take place on earth till day of judgment established from following Hadith: "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] Hearing Of Ghayb It is recorded in Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) heard the screams of people being tortured in the graves: “Narrated Ibn Abbas:Once the Prophet went through the grave-yards of Medina and heard the voices of two humans who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, "They are being punished, but they are not being punished because of a major sin, yet their sins are great. One of them used not to save himself from (being soiled with) the urine, and the other used to go about with calumnies (Namima)." Then the Prophet asked for a green palm tree leaf and split it into two pieces and placed one piece on each grave, saying, "I hope that their punishment may be abated as long as these pieces of the leaf are not dried." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H81] “Narrated Abi Aiyub: Once the Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice and said, "The Jews are being punished in their graves.” [Ref: Bukhari, B23, H457] “Anas b. Malik said: The Messenger of Allah entered the garden of the palm trees of Banu al-Najjar. He heard a voice and was terrified. He asked: Who are the people buried in these graves? The people replied: Messenger of Allah! These are some people who died in the pre-Islamic times. He said: Seek refuge in Allah from the punishment of the fire, and the trail of Antichrist. They asked: Why is it that, Messenger of Allah? He said: When a man is …” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B41, H4733] In another Hadith it is recorded Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions heard a loud bang noise and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained it is sound of a stone falling bottom of hell: “Abu Huraira reported: We were in the company of Allah's Messenger that we heard a terrible sound. Thereupon Allah's Apostle said: Do you know what (sound) is this? We said: Allah and His Messenger know best. Thereupon he said: That is a stone which was thrown seventy years before in Hell and it has'been constantly slipping down and now it has reached its base.” [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6813] Note sound of stone falling into Hell was heard by companions also because companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed with their ears a miracle of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Seeing And Hearing All Happenings In Universe By Prophet Of Allah: In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Messenger of Allah said:“I see what you do not see, and I hear what you do not hear. The heaven is creaking and it should creak, for there is no space in it the width of four fingers but there is an angel there, prostrating to Allah. By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh little and weep much, and you would never enjoy women in your beds, and you would go out in the streets, beseeching Allah.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4330] And same is reported in another Hadith of Tirmadhi: "Abu Dharr narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "Indeed I see what you do not see, and I hear what you do not hear. The Heavens creak, and they have the right to creak. There is no spot, the size of four fingers in them, except that there is an angel placing his forehead in it, prostrating to Allah. By Allah! If you knew what I know, then you would laugh little and you would cry much. And you would not taste the pleasures of your women in the beds, and you would go out beseeching Allah." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B10, H2312] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described what he saw by saying there isn’t a even four-finger gap on which the angels don’t prostrate and informed about the creaking of space. This is indication of how much Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) saw and heard. Ghayb Knowledge Implication Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: Shaykh Thanvi’s writtenstatement in light of Baaz and Ba-wasta would read like this: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from (ba-wasta) knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; (ba-wasta) knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds and carnivores because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] The baaz/ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb established in previous sections how does it not make Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his prophetic knowledge unique? And which lunatic, insect, cow, goat, donkey, pig, Amr, buffalo shares with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) all this knowledge of Ghayb? This much and countless more knowledge of Ghayb being known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) proves that he is unique. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having so much of ba-wasta and baaz Ghayb is his uniquesness and to negate his speciality/uniqueness of in baaz/ba-wasta Ghayb by equating his knowledge with lunatics, infants animals is Kufr: “… if baaz ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); ba-wasta Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Explanation Of Islamic Position With Examples And Their Objectives: When ever someone esteemed is compared with inferior in order to negate a merit then insult is intended. If one says: You’re not slim in fact you’re fat like a pig. He may say I intended to say you’re fat but every sane person would take offence for two reasons being called fat and being equated to pig in fatness. Similarly Shaykh Thanvi’s first offense is that he negated merit of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and second is that he did so by equating him through prophetic knowledge to knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, infants, and animals. Also considering what the Ghuyub are; especially knowledge of Wahi/Quran, it is disrespect of Quran/Wahi; to say even lunatics, infants, animals … possess such baaz knowledge of Ghayb. And worse it would mean that lunatics, infants, animals and every day idiots can receive Wahi because it is part of baaz/ba-wasta Ghuyub. Conclusion: Baaz and Ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and the quantity and the types of Ghuyun known to him establishes his uniqueness/speciality in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And therefore to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prophetic knowledge with knowledge of lunatics, infants, animals and common folk is to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Being equated to animals, lunatics and infants implies being infant, lunatic, animal in knowledge and or no better then them in knowledge. None would take this to be words of endearment. And to think for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this would be acceptable/excusable is only dream and wishful thinking of disbelievers. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] And if verse 26 is understood in the context of verse 25 and 27 then Ghayb referred is knowledge of judgment day and meaning is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not share it with anyone other then chosen Messengers. Implications would be that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sends four gardian angels with Jibraeel (alayhis salam) so no one steals knowledge from him and that he delivers it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------