My Story Of How I Became Orthodox Muslim - From Guidance To Misguidance To Guidance.

[MuhammedAli]

One: My Level Of Eduction In Pakistan:

I was born into orthodox Muslim family. Both my parents were not practicing Muslims but I did receive some religious education in our village Masjid by Hafiz Barkat. Education consisted of learning how to read the Arabic script of the Quran, which I was not keen on and did the best to avoid it and despite occasional beatings. I did not learn the method of reading Arabic script. Only religious interest I had was monthly Giyarweenh Mehfil hosted in our Masjid. That too was special effort for the Math-thahi distributed after the end of Mehfil. My knowledge of deen consisted of basics of Tawheed, belief in angels, Prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), judgment day, resurrection, being accountable for deeds, paradise, physical side of prayers, human-ness (i.e. Bashari’at) as well as Noorani’at of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), finality, historical event of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam), the saga of Karbala, accounts of wars in connection with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam), Apart from knowing these I had no real knowledge of my own belief. The knowledge I did possess of belief was imparted by elders and for which they did not have any evidence. It was mere repetition of what was heard from Scholars of Ahle Sunnat which they repeated and transmitted to me.

Two: Immigration To England And Interest In Reading:

I came to England at the age of around fourteen years but on the passport the age was lower. As a result of emigration I had English language difficulty and found it difficult to make friends. Being on my own and no real social event I began visiting my local library and began reading Urdu news paper. At that time my Urdu was very poor but regular visits to library helped me to improve my Urdu considerably. During these visits I learnt that library hosts an Urdu section of books which I explored and began borrowings books, starting with novels. Eventually I read all the novels and moved to books of history.  The library hosted a very small section on Islamic history and Muslim history. I began reading these books and when this section was fully explored decided to venture into religious section. Religious section in the library does not particularly represent a particular sect rather it consisted of mixtures of books. I must point out that the library lacked books from Ahle Sunnat. Most of the books present were either written by Wahhabis, or Deobandi, or Shia, and Islamic side was not represented, if it was, I cannot recall ever reading anything which I would say represented Islamic position.

Three: My Knowledge Of Other Sects:

In those days my perception regarding Wahhabis was that they are insulters of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and Awliyah-Allah. They do not celebrate birthday of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and do not make dua for the deceased on every Thursday (i.e. Jumma-rat Khatam), do not believe in Awliyah-Allah, do not host monthly Giyarweenh gatherings in their Masjid. Regarding the Shia I only knew they loved Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Fatimah, Hadhrat Hassan, Hadhrat Hussain (Allah be pleased with them all) and that they beat themselves on every tenth Muharram. I had no knowledge of existence of Deobandi’s or Qadiyani’s or Pervezi’s nor was I aware of their beliefs. I had no idea about any other source of deen apart from Quran. My first recollection of word Hadith stems from a childhood discussion with a class fellow called Waseem, who was from Purana Akalgarh. I vaguely recall asking him are you Sunni or Wahhabi and he said I am Ahle Hadith. That’s my earliest recollection of word Hadith but I had no idea what Hadith was until after coming to England. Looking back at that time all my friends; Waseem, Naveed, Asim Khan, Saleem, Khurram Riyaz, Mehboob and Jaleel were Wahhabi’s. There was reason for this because Aziz Public School was situated first in Deep Purana Akalgarh which is Wahhabi part of Islamgarh. Then it was moved to another area called Mehtay-na Mura but again it was deep in Wahhabi territory.  But I recall there was no religious discussion between us friends hence no influence.

Four: Recollections Of Disputes With Wahhabis:

My first recollection of discovering that there is bone to pick with Wahhabis with regards to our difference was when Asim Nazir’s father died in a car accident two more passengers. The three bodies were sent back home uncle Nazir was Muslim and resident of our village; Murra Rathiyan, but the other two who were relatives of uncle Nazir but were Wahhabis in belief. If I recall correctly they were from Hyderabad. When the bodies arrived back home the issue of funeral was contended and brothers of uncle Nazir wished his funeral not be lead by a Wahhabi Maulvi. But the relatives of the other two wished for a single funeral for the three and plans were to have the funeral in Hyderabad. Implications of which would have been Wahhabi Maulvi leading funeral prayers which the Muslims resented. Yearly Milad march started from main bazar near the GolChok and marched toward Hafiz Ishaq’s madrassa near Chungi. Then turn back toward GolChok once it reached GolChok it took right turn and via Mehtay-na Murra route went deep into Purana Akalgarh for Fatiha at a buzurg’s tomb. Purana Akalgarh being epic centre of Wahhabism in Islamgarh had problem with this visit by Muslims. There according to elders fight use to break out between Muslims and Wahhabis but this was not something which I witnessed. As a child I use to be part of the Juloos and the Juloos as accompanied by police to ensure security and harmony. There I remember being told by elders to avoid going to Purana Akalgarh with Juloos due to chance of sectarian violence.

Five: Developed Interest In Islamic Literature:

My religious education/interest began after I read several books from library and it was this time I became familiar with what Hadith is and what Bukhari/Muslim and other Hadith books are. Understanding what the content of these books is, I borrowed volume three of Sahih bukhari [it was only one on the shelf] all others were out. I enjoyed reading it so much that I never returned it back and still is in my possession, and as a result I had to pay for the volume. Also read other books but it caused a lot of confusion because the library hosted books of every sect and every view point. Reading all these different view points on same topics and not realizing that these view points are sectarian differences being presented by different sects, I came to reconcile the confusion with; deen is complex, cannot be understood by likes of me, i am a commoner and only top class intellects properly understand deen. Up till then I had read books of Islamic history, books of Fatwah, aqeedah, sectarian issues. Some of the books were already in the house because of my Taya Abdul Aziz [founder of Aziz Public School in Purana Akaalgarh - which I attended]. After he had passed away my Taya Muhammad Najeeb kept his older brothers books and stuff as memrobilia which managed to get my hands on and read. Up to leaving from Derby Moor Community School I relied on Pear Tree library for religious material and until then my religious leaning was non-sectarian and I was not aligned with a sectarian label. But after leaving DMCS in 1998 all this changed and my sectarian label became defined in Wilmorton College.

Six: Learning About Islam And Christianity And Giving Dawah To Christians:

Leaving DMCS I attended to Wilmorton College in Derby. In the college all of my friends associates were orthodox Muslims - but nothing of sectarian issues were ever discussed. This is where internet became available to me. With internet on my side the limit of research was only my imagination and ability. I cannot recall why or how I became interested in Islam and Christianity issue but i did. A lot of time was invested in researching the differences and learning to refute Christianity. Enter, late Sheikh Ahmed Deedat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), some how I stumbled upon website dedicated to his material - and his small book Combat Kit became my fave read and study guide along with his speeches and debates. Not being content with just listening to them I began barrowing them from Noor's shop [was close to Gurdwara in Normanton - now closed] Eventualy I started purchasing these videos from the same rental shop. Empowered with this knowledge began debating on online forums and giving dawah. With dawah came the draw back having to bear the criticism of Christians against Islam. Not being trained to process information and deduce conclusions and carry out research I was entirely on the mercy of research of others. As result I was introduced to various websites dedicated to answering christian criticism of Islam, to name few UnderstandingIslam, IslamicAwareness, MostMerciful, Bismikaallahuma, AnsweringChristianity, and a directory like website Sultan.org. These websites were the major websites but there were some less prominent ones - one of them was run by Abdul Raheem Green [a Christian convert to Wahhabism]. The field of giving dawah to christians was/is lead by Wahhabis. Two Christians I discussed often in college was Ruth/Judith [one of the two names] and Chris - drowned around 2008 without having the fortune of becoming Muslim. I would say, my internet associates, apart from Usman Sheikh [contributed articles to Bismikaallahuma on NT - long ago quit] everyone was Wahhabi but nothing was discussed between us.

Seven: Crisis Of Loss Of Love And Finding New Direction:

During my discussions with Christians I had to bear with a lot criticism/disrespect directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) and this had a negative effect on my love for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) states a Muslim is not momin until he loves me more then his children, wealth, wife, parents and anything else. I came to realize that giving Dawah to Christians has removed this love from my heart. When someone insulted my parents or any member of family naturally I felt anger but when the Christians insulted/disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) my response was mute and did not contain the ghairat e imaani which a Muslim with untainted heart has. I began to think about why this changed occurred and realized that originally like all Muslims I had the fire of ghairat e imani in me but consistently being exposed to criticism and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) I have become desensitized in this regard. It was then that I decided to withdraw from preaching to Christians and preserve my Iman and purity of heart. After withdrawing from this field I decided to channel my energy into learning about Islamic creed. Note this was time when my religious knowledge about creed of Islam was bare minimum. One Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who is not like His creation, sent Prophets, the last/final being Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). There will be judgment day, accountability, leading to hell or paradise, reward or punishment and angels. And also believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) was Noor e mujasim [i.e. Noor as Human] apart from this my knowledge of aqeedah was zero and the little i know was from word of mouth with no one ever discussing from Quran/Hadith. In this back drop I began to research material for aqeedah. At that time I had little to no knowledge of differences in creed of Muslims and assumption was all are Muslims and will have same aqeedah.

Eight: My Spree Of Reading Books On Creed:

With this mind set the very first book I read on aqeedah was Kitab at-Tawheed of Khariji Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab the Najdi. This book was followed by English translation of Taqwiyat Ul Iman written Ismail Dehalvi [a man who deliberately disrespected Prophets and Awliyah in this book] and published by Darussalam - Wahhabi publishers. I was advised I read the Urdu version of Taqwiyatul Iman and it was gifted to me by some brother from net. It had Taqwiyatul Iman (by Ismail Dehalvi), Takzira Al Ikhwan (by Ismail Dehalvi), and Nasihat Al Muslimeen (by Khuram Ali Bolahri). Studied, Qawaid Al Arba (i.e. Four Principles), Asool as-Salatha (i.e. Three Principles), Nawaqid Al Islam[1] (i.e. Nullifiers Of Islam), Creed Of Hamawiyyah, and Creed Of Wasatiyyah. All these books had major effect on my creed but Kitab at-Tawheed and Taqwiyatul Iman greatly effected my understanding of what ‘real’ Tawheed and Shirk are. The authors of these books expressed Tawheed and declared Shirk, in such and such a belief/creed. Another book which I read was written by Palan Haqqani's [Deobandi] book Shariah Not Ignorance [Urdu: Shariat Ya Jahalat - literally, Shariah Or Ignorance]. These three books laid the foundation of my deviation. Please note, even though these books presented a sectarian point of view. Kitab at-Tawheed employs Khariji methodology of Shirk and with its aid judges everything Shirk irrespective of if it is Shirk or not in true Islamic sense or not. Taqwiyatul Iman employed same Khariji methodology of Shirk and result was countless non-Shirk acts were declared Shirk. Despite this both these books did not declare their sectarian background nor did these books mention the sect which they are targeting. Due to absence of mention from which angle these books are being written and who is the target of these books, these books are taken by the readers as representation of Islamic belief. So what would a gullible reader know whose sectarian perspective he is reading and if this perspective is compatible with Islamic teaching or not. The gullible Muslim goes to shop with good faith and reads the name of the book and with good intentions purchases and reads it without ever realizing the misguidance he has made part of his belief. These books provide no clue to which sect is indoctrinating them and gullible Muslim is indoctrinated into Wahhabism – which is a offshoot of Kharijism. Unfortunately I was one of those gullible Muslims who fell into trap of these books and these books succeeded in indoctrinating me with Khariji methodology of determining Shirk and Kufr. Programing my self with Khariji literature I began to search for like minded people and material which compliments what I had read and to promote what I had learnt. Since I had given up the aspirations of being a preacher to Christians. I had to find a new interest and new cause with which I could promote Wahhabism as well as benefit Muslims via that cause.

Nine: Jhangvi MSN Community And Discussions With Its Members:

On MSN communities there was a Deobandi community named Jhangvi named after the firebrand Deobandi Haq Nawaz Jhangvi. It was here where my beliefs about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Noor being sent as human were challenged and first time I became aware that these beliefs are not compatible with the beliefs of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Ismail Dehalvi. I was told this is the belief of Barelwi’s and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabm, Ismail Dehalvi etc. … were all against the Barelwi’s and informed that books Kitab at-Tawheed, Taqwiyatul Iman were written in refutation of the Shirk of Barelwi’s. I recall during a discussion I was told Barelwi’s believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not a human being but they believe he was Noor. In response to which I replied but I believed he was a human being and Noor and so did my family therefore it doesn’t make sense you saying this. But discussion dragged along and Satan made me forget and coated over the truth with falsehood. Then they quoted me verses of Quran and said, see Quran says he is human like us and the Barelwis believe he is not. I conceded the error of Barelwis on this topic and agreed with the Deobandis. Subjects of Ilm Al Ghayb and Hadhir Nazir were also discussed with the members of Jhangvi community and on both subjects I had agreed with their understanding at the end of it. Regarding different types of Tawassul my mind was already made up after I had read Kitab at-Tawheed and Taqwiyatul Iman hence there was no need to discuss. Number of points which enabled to me determine my position on these issues. Dua means to call, to invoke, to call, to supplicate. Dua is worship. Now the subjects, asking help directly from deceased – Shirk. Asking the deceased to make Dua on your behalf – Shirk. Judged to be Shirk solely on the basis that deceased is being called upon to help which makes the call as worship which is Shirk. At that time I did not have any problem with directing Dua to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but mentioning a Nabi or Wali, like: ‘O Allah grant me a son because I am your servant and I love the Prophet you sent as the last/final Prophet and I have accepted him as a Prophet from you. So O Allah I invoke you and do not disappoint me.’ But later on through discussions online I came to understand this understanding was incorrect and Ismail Dehalvi made mistake in this regard. I was told, this is also Shirk because this type of Tawassul was similar to how polytheists invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) through their idol gods.

Ten: How Some Of These Books Effected My Belief:

It would be good idea to actually briefly state how Kitab at-Tawheed and Taqwiyatul Iman greatly changed my world view. It is important to point out that not all the points I will mention have been explicitly stated in Kitab at-Tawheed. I quite frequented PalTalk and often discussed and listened to speeches by ‘brothers’ who explained Kitab at-Tawheed. Their explanation helped me to realize to whom the vague parts of Kitab at-Tawheed apply and anything which I state which is not mentioned is likely to be from those discussions if not then from forums. After reading Kitab at-Tawheed I came to believe to wear Taweez is Shirk and to slaughter an animal on the name of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk. And it was applied upon – the common mans vow/nazr: ‘I will sacrifice a goat in the name of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah) if Allah granted me a son.’[2] I was told because they say they will sacrifice the animal on the name of deceased they commit Shirk and they said the meet of such animal is Haram.[3] Also to vow, to perform a act of worship/charity with intention to gift the reward to a deceased person was deemed as vow to other then Allah which was understood to be Shirk. To say: ‘O Messenger Of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)!’ Or to say: ‘O Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) help!’[4] In addition to this I came to believe that people excessively respecting/loving the pious people resulted in Muslims falling into Shirk hence the Prophets/Saliheen should be treated as they are ordinary human beings and emphasis should be placed on their being ordinary to ensure people do not make them equals with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[5] I learnt to apply the verses revealed for polytheists upon Muslims in order to establish Shirk of Muslims. This methodology was of Khawarij according to Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and the modern Khawarij the leader of whom is Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab employed exactly same methodology in Kitab at-Tawheed. Also the concept of blocking the means to Shirk was learnt which means anything that can lead to Shirk should be discredited and destroyed if it is possible.[6] Read footnote 4 for demonstration of what was and is done to block the means to Shirk. Also came to believe that the Muslim majority is engaged in worship of idols (i.e. graves, Awliyah-Allah, Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and those who are worshipped beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are Taghoot.[7]

Eleven: I Believed Muslims Worship Idols:

In addition to this I also came to believe some members of Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will worship idols. Even though we officially believed in some members of Ummah yet me and my co-religionist – Wahhabis lived a contradiction and those who follow this sect continue to live this contradiction. is believe majority of Muslims are guilty of [major] Shirk and they continue to do so and I fondly quoted the verse: “Most believed not in Allah except that they associate others with Him.” [12:106] Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabi employed this verse in his Kitab at-Tawheed and Ismail Dehalvi in his Taqiwatul Iman.[8]  This verse is often used to justify the charge of [major] Shirk levelled against Muslims because the Muslims. Educated Muslims argue that we believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence we are not guilty of Shirk so Wahhabis like me quoted this verse to say, yes you do, but not without associating partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hence you are no different from the polytheists of Makkah. Once the knowledge learnt was forgotten and I like all Wahhabis began to interpret or understand Quran by itself – taking the literal meaning of verses in discussion Wahhabis come to and I came to believe majority of Muslims were guilty of Shirk. In fact Ismail Dehalvi wrote, [belief in] actual Tawheed is a rare but most of the people do not understand meaning of Tawheed and Shirk, and yet claim to have faith but in reality are trapped in Shirk. He continues to write about various qualifies which will make a Muslim Mushrik in his warped definition and understanding of Shirk, and end with saying, someone in time of difficulty invokes the name of someone, someone in his during his speech takes an oath of another, point is that what ever a Hindu does in relation to his idols, all this is done by those false Muslims to their saints, prophets, imams, matyrs, angels and fairys, and yet claim to be Muslim. Then he writes praise be to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and writes, with that mouth and and their this claim [of being Muslim], Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said truly in Surah Yunus, and then he quotes the verse quoted above. In other words, he stated majority doesn’t know Tawheed and Shirk, yet claim to be people of faith. Implications of which in the context of chapter is that majority is only claiming to be Muslim but in reality isn’t. He then writes qualifiers which point why in his beliefe the majority is guilty of Shirk or Mushrik. He then states with their polytheistic mouth they claim to be Muslims, and reality of this majority is that most of them do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) accept that they commit Shirk. Implication of which is obvious that according to him and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab majority of Muslims are Mushriks. In the same chaper after he quotes 12:106 he goes on to present excuses which he says Muslims present in defence of their [polytheistic] belief and in response to which he writes,  in presence of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the disbelievers said such things and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not accept nothing from them (i.e. of their excuses why they have polytheistic beliefs and actions) and Allah was displeased with them and declared them liars hence in Surah Yunus Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, and they worship besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that which does not benefit nor does any harm and say they are our intercessors to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and say do you tell Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which He does not know, He is unique in heavens and earth, from those which they attribute to Him. [10:18] Implication here is that Ismail Dehalvi has stated, majority of the Muslims worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Just from this first chapter I learnt that the majority of Muslims are unaware of what Tawheed and what Shirk is. And Majority of Muslims commits acts which nullify their belief in Islam yet despite they claim to be Muslims. I also learnt those who claim to be Muslims make excuses in defence of their belief like the polytheists made for their own beliefs and lastly but not least I learnt that majority is guilty of worshiping others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Twelve: Manual Of Takfir And Killing:

Without going to too much detail about lessons learnt from his books I can summarize. Taqwiyatul Iman is basicly a gold mine for those who look for reasons to declare Muslims as Mushriks. Ismail Dehalvi wrote, qualifiers of Shirk, these qualifiers consist of everything a orthodox Muslim does. Hence every practice of Muslims is stated to be Shirk in one sense or another. And one who studies this book comes to conclusion that the [vast majority of] Muslims are in fact Mushrik and he and his co-religionists are only true monotheists. After this realisation the Takfir of [vast majority of] Muslims is easy, like one, two, three, for Phd holder. Another note worthy quality of this book is that it is a master piece of insults and disrespect directed toward Prophets and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[9] Once studied there is no doubt in my mind that a person would have any love and respect left for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his heart. This book is death sentence to love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And if you are involved in religious discussions on internet forums, you might have heard Wahhabi/Deobandi members equating Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to a postman, or having no greater position in deliverance of message of Islam than a postman has in delivering a letter.[10] In fact years ago, in my search for pure Islamic teaching I visited a Wahhabi website which had the following statement: “As for the authority of the Sunnah, then it must be understood that the role of the Prophet Muhammad (S) was not as a mere postman who, after delivering his letter, has no concern with it whatsoever. The Messenger was not sent just to deliver the Book of Allah, but to expound it and demonstrate a practical example of its contents.” [Ref: AllaahuAkbar.net, scribd] Note even though the author of this statement is actually refuting the: understanding that role of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was no greater then postman, he has still not done away with the postman label. Please pay attention to his words, Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not as a mere postman. In this sentence the word mere has been used in meaning of; just, only and simply. In other words according to the author he was not just/only a postman but was something else also and he states it was his duty deliver the message [as a postman] and to explain it. So note that apple hasn’t fallen further from the tree of Wahhabism and Taqwiyat Ul Iman. Shade of which is disrespect and insulting the Prophets and the friends of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). One of the most valuable and lesson learnt reading Ismail Dehalvi was from his book Tazkiratul Ikhwan and for which evidence of Quran and Ahadith was available hence I have not abandoned it. This lesson was regarding definition of innovation. In the mentioned book he explained that definition of innovation has been classifed as good innovation and evil innovation by one group of scholars and the other has determined there is only one type of innovation – without going into detail of good and bad innovation – and according to these group of scholars – innovation is evil by default hence specifics are not required. In this book he also emphatically states, To eliminate Shirk, was the reason for which the Quran had descended and the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought the disbelievers and now in this [Shirk] Muslims have fallen into.[11] 

Thirteen: MAW  Written Material And What It Taught Me:

Coming Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s booklet, four fundamental principles. In this booklet he basicly argues polytheists against whom Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought, they believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) despite this they were not Muslims. In second principle he states polytheists sought intercession of their gods and goes on to state intercession is of two kinds, permitted and prohibited. Permitted he states is one which is sought from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and where intercessor is permitted to interceed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) etc. Prohibited is which is sought from anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on matters which none has the ability perform except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In third principle he states, Arabs worshipped; Prophets,  pious people, stones, trees[12], sun and moon. And states that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought all of the polytheists without making distinction between any of the polytheists. Then he goes on to give proof for what he has stated. His first, second and third principles are actually a build-up to the fourth principle: “That  the polytheists in our era (i.e. Muslims of Arabia and generally of entire world) are more severe in their (committing of)  shirk than the first polytheists (i.e. who lived during Prophet’s time). This was since the first polytheists used to associate  partners  with  Allah at times of ease and worship Him sincerely during times of hardship. However, the polytheist s in our era constantly commit  shirk  in times of ease as well as in times of hardship.” So basicly he laid the foundation of his charge of Shirk in the first three principle in fourth principle he declared the Muslims of entire world of being more strict in persuing Shirk then the polytheists of pre-Islamic era. In other words he considered the pre-Islamic era polytheists to be lesser polytheists then the Muslims of his time. Not just that, note he stated in principle three Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought the polytheists without sparing any excuse for any of them. So now in fourth principle he has declared the Muslims of being worse in Shirk then polytheists of pre-Islamic era – what is he implying? Spare the worse type of polytheists (i.e. Muslims) or fight them without making distinction between any of the so called Muslims? It is obvious that if fighting lesser polytheists was acceptable then fighting the greater polytheists would also be acceptable. And indeed his armies ransacked cities of Muslims and killed countless Muslims on basis of his these teachings and continue to do so under various ‘terrorist’[13] organisational names – such as Al Qaidah, ISIS, Boko Haram, Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan, etc. Robbed the Muslims of their property and dishonored their women with rape because they believed these women were women of polytheists hence to enslave them and to engage in sexual intercourse with them without Nikkah is permissible.

Fourteen: Palan Haqqani Of Shari’at Ya Jahalat:

Palan Haqqani’s book Shari’at Ya Jahalat – is basicly a further extention of belief of Ismail Dehalvi and generally Deobandism. In which he states the Muslims are worshipers of Peers/Pirs yet affirm the belief that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is their God.[14] Also he accused the Muslims of subcontinent of not believing in Quran, or Hadith, or reliable texts of Hanafi Madhab. This is a sneaky way of Takfir of vast majority of Muslims in subcontinent and unfortunately I had swallowed all this without any objections. I also read some where in his book where he equated the majority of Muslims of subcontinent with following the footsteps of Jews and Christians. In order to justify the charge of Shirk levelled against Muslims. He stated the Muslims have common  beliefs and  practices which connect them with pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism and Hinduism of subcontinent. In other words he stated Muslims of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Aghanistan are polytheists. Basicly Palan Haqqani presented the beliefs of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab found in his works but did add his own material and discussed subjects controversial in subcontinent as well. From reading his book it was clear to the influence of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab on him. For example he writes, idolatory started when people made replicas of pious to remember them, later Satan incited people to worship these.[15] Yet son Qari Muhammad Tayyib and great grandson of founder of Madrassa of Deoband and author of, Seerat Pak, writes emphatically that idolatory started from Kabah because it was so deeply revered as a sanctury of god. The people of Arabia took the stones from it and shaped them, and worshipped what they created. This history of idol creation and worship author of this book attributed to Tareekh Ibn Khalidoon.[16] The point I am making is that he ignored his traditional Deobandi position due to influence of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Over all this book reinforced my understanding of what I had read in, Kitab at-Tawheed, Taqwiyatul Iman, Tazkiratul Ikhwan. This book also pointed me to new direction – to subjects of Hadhir Nazir, Ilm Al Ghayb and due to earlier resistance and eventual surrendering of my judgment on Jhangvi MSN community regarding my understanding of these two topics. I took everything on board written on these two subjects. Also on Fiqhi subjects such as Mawlid, Urs, Isaal as-Sawab I surrendered my judgment citing lack of knowledge of Quran and Hadith, and personal lack of knowledge, and accepted his positions. Note he wrote numerous times in his book the Peer and the scholars who don’t know about Quran and Sunnah teach these things, and they are driven by earning wealth, hence they twist Quran and Hadith to promote these things to earn money. After reading this through out the book I had basically come to accept and agree with him. Imust have thought if the scholars don’t know as he is saying then what is my worth so it is best to just to accept his position. I vaguely remember reading book of Omar Bakri, leader of Al Muhajiroon organisation, [if I recall correctly] it was titled, Creed Of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. Basicly this book was composed of Wahhabi beliefs and stated which beliefs of it were in common with which sect. Reading it I came to realize according to Omar Bakri, Wahhabism has more in common with the Khawarij then any other sect. Through my studies after coming to orthodox Islam I agreed that core theology of Wahhabism which revolves around polytheism is of Khawarij.

Fifteen: Confusion Regarding Dates Sorted:

Readers who know about sectarian differences would have noted that I was reading books written by scholars of Deobandi and Wahhabi sects. There was a reason for this – I visisted PalTalk quite frequently where Wahhabis recommended that I read, Kitab at-Tawheed, Qawaid Al Arba, Taqwiyatul Iman in English, and Creed Of Hamawiyyah, Wasatiyyah, Kitab Al Iman, Al Ubudiyyah written by Ibn Taymiyyah. Even though I was reading books of Deobandi scholars as well but due to my associations with Wahhabis I inclined toward Wahhabism and adopted the label Wahhabi. Another point - the books I had read of Deobandi scholars did not contradict teaching of Wahhabism but rather both sects agree on the issues hence no contradiction was noticed. I took interest in disputes between orthodox Islam and Shia. Whilst carrying out research into disputes my attention was brought to Jhangvi group which hosted discussions on these subjects and this lead me to Deobandi website KR-HCY. On Jhangvi community after I had disputed with the members on some issues which I had not dealt with in the material I had read prior to this. Even though the issues were reconciled in their favour they recommended that I read, Palan Haqqani’s book; Shariah Ya Jahalat, and Urdu original of Taqwiyatul Iman. It has been over a decade – around fourteen years since I surrendered my Wahhabism in late 2001, and around ten years since I have given-up Deobandism – later part of 2005. Some aspects have confused me and I cannot place them in choronological order. Others I cannot recall precisely and I have aproximated and this includes numbers of years being influenced by Wahhabism. My hardcore Wahhabism years roughly numbered two years but if I count my two years of college then I was Wahhabi for about 4 years but this includes the roughly two years where I was naturalising Wahhabism. If I include my time spent on Jhangvi community and studying books due to the recommendation of Deobandi members till my conversion to Deobandism then time in Deobandism would be from 2000 to 2005. My official conversion to Deobandism took place sometime in 2002. Considering all this and generalising based on years then I was member of Wahhabi sect from 1998 to 2002 which amounts to four years of life being spent as Wahhabi. From official conversion which took place sometime in 2002 to leaving Deobandism sometime in 2005, my years in Deobandi sect are three. And finally from 2005 till 2016, or till of now, I have been Muslim for 10 years.

Sixteen: When I Studied Material Of HT and Al Muhajiroon:

Also do note, I did not investigate into matters of Fiqh/Madhab hence my Hanafi Madhab has remained constant throughout my life. Another thing, I cannot recall when I started reading material of  Hizb ut-Tahrir (i.e. Khilafah Magazine) or when I studied, Constitution Of Khilafah. CoK was given to me by my associate Asif [he was/is member of Hizb ut-Tahrir] and he went through the material with me to explain ideology of HT. Hizb ut-Tahrir did not contribute anything toward my becoming Wahhabi therefore I am not going to state anything about this group. Al Muhajiroon was a Wahhabi group but I had no interest in their activities apart from their aqeedah material [by Amir and Bilal in WC] but influence of Al Muhajiroon was limited on me. So I was never really became a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir or Al Muhajiroon at any time of my life but did read material from both groups, more of Hizb ut-Tahrir then Al Muhajiroon. I found Hizb ut-Tahrir’s philosophy of establishing Khilafah interesting.[17] I also have jumbled some account. The earlier part of this account of my Wahhabism/Deobandism was intending to be brief. Just to inform readers of my past associations and sources of influence. I had no plan to write a comprehensive account so I crammed everything without putting everything in order and without specifying details. Now I have decided to write a comprehensive account hence the details contradicts the brief account and I have revised the material. I intended to finish Wahhabi and Deobandi episode on part ten, and then continue with how I became orthodox Muslim. But later decided against it and thought it would be good idea to state what I gained from Taqwiyatul Iman, and Kitab at-Tawheed. Even that I expanded to include other foundational material of Wahhabism – Qawaid Al Arba of Ibnul Wahhab and Deobandi Palan Haqqani’s, Shari’at Ya Jahalat. I do not claim this to be absolutely accurate account of my naturalization to Salafism and then to Deobandism but I have done my level best to put everything to pen truthfully and to best of my memory.

Seventeen - You’re What You Eat And What You Read:

As a result of reading books mentioned earlier and not mentioned I quitely engaged in preaching and promoting Wahhabist ideology over the internet but not through aggressive prostelzing but passive. I found best way of indoctrinating unsuspecting Muslims into Wahhabism was to use another cause as means of getting into a circle of people[18] and while their focus would be mutualy agreed cause I would gradually impart to them theology and philosophy of Wahhabism. Fortunately, due to passive method of prostelyzing I didn’t gain any converts to Wahhabism but must have influenced individuals with the Wahhabi thought. Those who were interested in learning about ugly side of Shiaism departed after experiencing my unreasonable amount of anti-Shia rehtoric and Takfir directed toward Shia generality and Shia scholarship. This was result of listening to likes of Mawlana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, Mawlana Isar Ul Qasmi, Mawlana Zia ar-Rahman Farooqi, Mawlana Mohsin Raza Farooqi [he is a ex-Shia and convert to Deobandism], and Mawlana Ali Sher Haidri. A prominent feature in their lectures was to say: Kafir! Kafir! Shia Kafir! And the following was said right after the mentioned: Joh na manay voh bi Kafir! Meaning - one who does not believe [Shia are Kafir] that one is [also] Kafir. They often quoted what the Rawafiz had written in their books against mothers of believers - Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha), and Hadhrat Hafsa (radiallah ta’ala anha). Also what the Rawafiz have written regarding the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), including Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddeeq (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Hadhrat Umar Farooq (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and Hadhrat Uthman Ghani (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And what the Rawafiz wrote was so ugly, vile, flagrant abuse; anyone with spec of faith in their hearts would have been moved to tears and his emotions and judgment will agree with: Kafir! Kafir! Shia Kafir![19] I was also member of KR-HCY forum and to present united front against the Rawafiz we did not discuss/debate in public differences between Muslim, Deobandi, Hanbali Wahhabism and Wahhabi Ghayr Muqallideen.

Eighteen – Becoming Disillusioned With Wahhabism – Group Of Satan:

My becoming Wahhabi was not really a intellectual decision because circumstances and associations presented me with Wahhabi written material. Yet my decision to leave Wahhabism was based on achieving greater intellectual maturity and knowledge of Quran and Ahadith. I was first alarmed when I discovered the Ahadith about Najd which was quoted to me by a Muslim to refute me. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) refusing to supplicate for region of Najd but supplicated for Syria and Yemen – stating group of Satan will emerge from Najd and afflictions will eminate from Najd. Upon investigation of Wahhabi position on these Ahadith I came to understanding Najd is in Iraq. Call it chance or Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) help. I found Hadith in which it was stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fought in Najd, here. Implications of which were, if Najd is Iraq then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) must have fought a war in Iraq but research into matter proved that region of Iraq was not attacked by Muslims in life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor he fought in Iraq. Also I was told this Hadith was about Khawarij and they emerged from Iraq hence Najd is Iraqi city of Basrah and historically Basrh was part of Najd of Arabian Peninsula. When this was investigated, I learnt the first group of Khawarij did not emerge from Basrah but they seperated from army of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) after battle of Siffin - 657, which took place in Syria.[20] And then in 658 Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had fought Khawarij in Iraq at Nahrawan, near capital Baghdad. Putting it simply Khawarij emerged from Syria as a sect and not from Iraq. Iraq was the place of battle between army of Amir Ul Momineen Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Khariji army. It was the Iraqis who killed the Khawarij in battle at Nahrawan and this is attested by Hadith found in Muslim and narrated by Abu Said Al Khudri (radiallah ta’ala anhu), here. Realising this argument does not hold weight either in light of established facts. Upon further investigation into the subject of, group of Satan emerging from Najd, I found Ahadith which precisely pointed to a particular direction. Ahadith stated group of Satan will emerg from direction of East. I consulted the maps and realized city of Raqqah the place of battle of Siffin from where Khawarij emerged is due North of Madinah, hence it cannot be East. Also Baghdad was long way off direction of East. I was willing to be flexible to accomadate Basrah into East but my generosity wasn’t willing to allow absolute distortion – to include Baghdad into East, it was over stretching my generosity. And as I mentioned earlier Basrah even if allowed to be in East would not suffice because Khawarij emerged as a sect at Siffin. Investigating this subject yeilded more Ahadith, group of Satan will emerge from direction of sunrise, Prophet pointed from Minbar of Masjid Nabvi toward Hadhrat Aysha’s house while pointing to direction from where the group of Satan will emerge from. The first Hadith – of sunrise – sunrises from different place every day,  changing from south east to north east then returning, from north east to south east. I narrowed down the region from where the group of Satan will emerge by checking the furthest region from where the sunrises between to extremities – roughly it was from northern border of Kuwait to western boder of Oman, as demonstrated here. Hence the region of group of Satan was between the northern and southern boundaries of sunrise. The Hadith which precisely pointed to direction from where the group of Satan would emerge was of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointing toward the house of Hadhrat Aysha’s to indicate the direction of East from where it would emerge. After locating the from where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointed toward her house, I drew a straight line from his position to her house. Note her house is where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is burried in his heavenly abode and the out come was a line pretty precisely pointing to Riyadh. My research on this Hadith years later culminated into this article, here. Eventually I had a precise direction to which I could be little flexible with and viola I had my Najd. Note, Najd was always known and indicated on maps, it was and is Najd known to all, situated in central Saudi Arabia, and surrounds area around capital Riyadh, see evidence of it, here. Importance of Najd and its location was/is crucial to understanding the origin of Wahhabism. Another argument in defence of Iraq being Najd was that, in the Hadith of Najd from where group of Satan would emerge, the word Najd (i.e. raised, elevated land) is used in linguistic meaning and not as a name of locality or region. Logical response to this was, in that case Syria and Yemen could also be linguistic usage – hence Syria, Yemen could be any land that fits the linguistic meanings of these words. Also Najd could be any land in East, such as mount K2, Everest, or even highiest battle ground, Kargil. It was irrational that a region which was known by name (i.e. Najd), location (East Of Madinah, central Arabia), was not considered Najd mentioned in Hadith of group of Satan. Nor there was a president where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ever used a name of region for linguistic usage. Also I used topological maps available on internet to see if traditional location of Najd fits into linguistic meaning of Najd or did it fit on Iraq as my Wahhabi co-religionists believed and attempted to prove. My investigation to see if linguistic meaning fitted Iraq or central Arabian province lead me to believe location of Najd is in central Arabia – region surrounded by Saudi capital Riyadh and not Iraq. This understanding was later further cemented when I carried out thorough research into matter and the fruits of that labour were published in the following article, here.
Note location of Najd is important because the founder of Wahhabism was born in Najd. Wahhabi sect emerged from Najd and accused Muslims of being worst then polytheists of pre-Islamic era. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab legalised killing of Muslims under the pretext that they are disbelievers, looting of their property, and enslavement of Muslim women. Also English translation of Kitab at-Tawheed details of which I mentioned in footnote eight, on page ten claims to portray the condition of Najd[“], and on page fifteen under heading; impact of Dawah, states Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab fought struggled against Muslims of Najd until he gained victory in Najd[^]. This is explicit confirmation that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was Najdi. Once it became apparent to me that Wahhabi sect was strong contender for being the group of Satan which was to emerge from Najd, I was disillusioned but still held to Wahhabism for reasons unknown. I guess the reason Najd is in central Arabia and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s Wahhabi sect emerged from it, must not have been concrete reason enough to leave it.

Nineteen - Becoming Disillusioned With Wahhabism – Muslims Are Mushrik:

Anyone who is familiar with Wahhabism will know that core teaching of its founder was; Muslims have fallen into major Shirk, they are worse in polytheism then the polytheists of Arabia, Tawheed had disapeared from Arabian Peninsula until Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab had reintroduced it. And as a result of these convictions Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab believed it is permissible to kill Muslims, take their property, enslave their men, women and children. Note even though I have used generic term ‘Muslim’ which does not specify a particular group of people. It should be noted his target was members of Ahle Sunnat - subcontinent’s equivlent is Barelwi. The foundation of all actrocities was the belief that Muslims have fallen into polytheism hence they are no longer Muslim – worse then disbelievers of pre-Islamic era. So I decided to investigate the claim that Muslims are polytheists. When I judged using the principles of Tawheed and Shirk learnt from Wahhabism I came to conclusion which these principles were primed to produce – these people were indeed Mushrik. It would be best to mentioned some principles to indicate what I mean. Words of Hadith, dua [directed to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] is worship, distorted and applied as: [every] dua [to the dead] is worship, and we all know worship of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. Another, any help sought from one who does not possesses the means to grant what is asked from him/her is Shirk. In other words, ma fawq al asbab help sought from anyone is Shirk. In light of first mentioned principle, saying ‘Ya RasoolAllah!’ is Shirk because I have used harf e nida (i.e. words of call) and I have called upon ‘dead’ Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore as per Wahhabism I am guilty of worshipping Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[23] The second principles basicly teaches that if someone does not possess power, ability, right, to grant something and one ask from him/her then such a person is guilty of major Shirk. Suppose I ask from, a friend right to enter paradise because he does not possess the right to grant entry to paradise, I have committed major Shirk according to Wahhabism. But often this principle is applied to asking from the dead. So asking help from the dead would be major Shirk.[24] Coming back to the subject – when ever I used the principles of Wahhabism I arrived at same understanding; Sufis are Mushrik. I cannot recall how or where I read/heard the Ahle Sunnats position that Muslim Ummah as whole will not committ major Shirk. Where as position of Wahhabism was that vast majority of Muslims have fallen into major Shirk and only a minority are upon Tawheed – this minority was none other then followers of Wahhabism. As a Wahhabi my position was clear to me, Ummah has fallen into Shirk, like Jews and Christians had fallen into Shirk, based on the Ahadith of, tribes of my Ummah will worship idols, here. Based on all the Ahadith used by Wahhabis it was clear to me that Muslims will worship idols according to Ahadith. During this period it dawned on me that scholars of Ahle Sunnat read the very same Ahadith, in Arabic, yet do not agree with Wahhabi understanding of these Ahadith. Was it because all of them were insanely jealous of true understanding of these Ahadith given by Wahhabis, or were they such staunch defiers of truth that they would not accept truth because they loved prestige they have due to being scholars of heretics? I came to conclusion, you know, Ali, some might be jealous, and some from them deny the Wahhabi understanding of these Ahadith because they have a status, but surely in hundereds of thousands of Muslim scholars there would be few who were honest, truthful, sincere in finding the truth, and they exhorted all effort to learn the real meaning of these Ahadith, and after all the effort and sincere search for the truth, they found their understanding to be correct. And how do I know the understanding which I hold to is the truth after all I am just believe what was told to me. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated in Quran, obey Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), refer to people of authority, but when in dispute refer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), so based on this command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I decided to investigate the matter in dispute. So the very first aspect I investigated was, the Hadith referenced above, which idols does it refer to? Does it refer to deceased Saliheen, or their graves, or idols in true sense? Note, we used these Ahadith to argue the Muslims are worshiping idols and by idols we meant, graves and deceased Saliheen in those graves.[25] So I embarked upon this quest of finding the truth for my self and I was surprised. I found out that Ahadith which I have been using to mean graves and Saliheen burried in the graves, due to their generality in meaning, have been explained by other Ahadith, to mean idols such as Al-Lat, Dhi Al Khalasa, and Al Uzza. The following is article which establishes this position in light of Ahadith, here. The next was Hadith of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) following the footsteps of Jews and Christians. After bit of pondering over the meaning and relating it to current state of affairs of Muslims – how they emulate the West in eating, sleeping, dress, behavioural habbits as well as desire and aspire to follow the morality of West, it became apparent to me that Hadith did not mean emulating them in polytheism but emulating them in their way of life. Note Hadith says, emulating both Jews and Christians, and their collective achievement is Western worlds present reality.  A article was dedicated to explain in detail the understanding I arrived at that juncture of my life, here. The next point of contention was, that according to Wahhabism Muslims will worship idols but the scholars of Ahle Sunnat believed non-Muslim Arabs would revert to idolatory after a sweet cool musky wind blows which will take the life of Muslims, and I found the position of Ahle Sunnat to be substantiated from evidence of Ahadith, here. The following article is in support of article linked prior to it, here. So far it was clear to me that Wahhabis misinterpret the Ahadith to fit their own agenda and it was also apparent to me that at the very least no Hadith establishes major Shirk in the majority of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Okay, addmitted the Wahhabis misinterpret the Ahadith but the correct understanding does not imply majority will not be guilty of major Shirk. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) emphatically stated that Muslims will not worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When I subjected my Wahhabi understanding to test I came to realize that this is inclusive of all Muslims and not just Sahabah, here. I needed something to absolve the Arab Muslims from major Shirk. A statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in which he stated Muslims of Arabia will not worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This would suffice and refute the claim of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab that Arabs were steeped into major Shirk in his life time, and it would be enough to refute his entire mission and his entire invented religion of Wahhabism. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guided me to a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said, by Allah Satan will not be worshipped in Arabian Peninsula. When I investigated the meaning of this Hadith in light of Quran I understood that Satan worship is synonym for idol worship. In other words idols would be not be worshipped in Arabian Peninsula. Based on the Ahadith of worship of idols by Arabian tribes, I uderstood Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had made Takhsees of the general rule by stating tribes of Ummah will worship idols. Meaning idols would not be worshipped in Arabian Peninsula except until after the blowing of wind, except until after the death of all Muslims. Two articles dedicated to this understanding of Hadith of Satan not being worshipped in Arabian Peninsula are, here and here.

Twenty – Why I Left Wahhabism:

The entire foundation of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabs movement was, Arabs have become Mushriks [even before the blowing of cool musky sweet wind which was to kill all Muslims] for this and these reasons. This belief of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab does not stand with teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he has taught Arabian Peninsula will not see idol worship until after the blowing of wind and the death of all Muslims, and after this event Kuffar living in Arabia will revert to idolatory. So when I realised the contradiction between Wahhabism and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) I decided to choose the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and gave up all teachings, all principles, of Wahhabism on which I use to judge all matters of creed. Simply because if the principle produces a teaching which goes against teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then just the teaching on its own isn’t incorrect but the principle which resulted this teaching also is incorrect. The legitimacy of Wahhabism was based on the thesis that Muslims are engaged in major Shirk in Arabian Peninsula. Yet there was to be no major Shirk in the belief of people of Arabian Peninsula until after the death of Muslims. Therefore I concluded Wahhabism was an irreligious Khariji rebellion against established Muslim tradition. After further investigation into the subject of Kharijism I learnt Wahhabi sect fulfilled all the prophecies of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) regarding the group of Satan of Najd. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had foretold, the group of Satan will kill Muslims, they will spare disbelievers, they will shave their heads, and their pants would be above their ankles. Also studied history of Wahhabi sect and found them fulfilling the details, such as killing Muslims, skin-head shaving, their out word adherence to Sharia being unrivalled compared to the people of their age/locality. Once it was clear to me that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was born in Najd, his Wahhabi band Ikhwan - original ISIS, emerged from Najd and did all the evil in Najd. I distanced my self from Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s killing of Muslims, looting property of Muslims, enslavement of Muslim men and women. As my understanding of definitions of Shirk/Tawheed developed from perspective of Ahle Sunnat and when I became familiar with various divisions in each subject my convictions became solidified – Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and his band of terrorists and those who have germinated ever since were/are a branch of Khawarij. Due to my stern and out spoken nature I condemed his, and actions of those who followed him with strongest, harshest words I could mint with combination of Takfir, on PalTalk, in a Wahhabi disscussion group.[26] As a result I fell out with my PalTalk Wahhabi buddies and I then officially renounced my Wahhabism on Understanding-Islam forum and I have never looked back to regain my faith in Wahhabism.

TwentyOne – Jhangvi Community The Arena Of Sectarianism:

At the time when I abandoned Wahhabism as mentioned earlier I was already part of Jhangvi community and the envoriment of the community was such that we all strived to refute the Rawafiz and this required knowledge. To help me to acquire knowledge about the disputed subjects between Muslim, Deobandi, Wahhabi and Shia I was recommended to read Urdu books such as: Tohfa Athna Ashariyyah by Shaykh Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehalvi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) Tareekhi Dastawaiz by Maulana Zia ar-Rahman Farooqi, Rad ar-Rawafiz by Mujadid Alif Saani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), and Radd Ur-Rifdha by Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Hidayat Ush-Shia by Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, and Irshad Ush-Shia by Sarfaraz Khan Safdar. Also I became embroiled in Muslim vs Deobandi, Wahhabi disputes – such as Noor & Bashr, Hadhir Nazir, Ilm Al Ghayb and these issues were resolved in favour of Deobandism. And also started to learn the legal status of disputed issues of Fiqh under guidance of Deobandis and with aid definition of innovation learnt from Wahhabis. I was told Barelwis are steeped in innovations and their practices have no evidence from Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and following issues are innovations which the Barelwis have fallen into: celebration of Mawlid, various days appointed for supplicating for the deceased relatives – Dua of Thursday (i.e. Khatam Juma-raat), Dua of 4^th,  Dua of 10^th, Dua of 40^th, Giyarweenh (i.e. Dua on 11^th of every Islamic month), Urs/Barsi (i.e. commemorating life of a Wali or Aalim - yearly), Dua after funeral (i.e. Dua Bad e Janazah), Konday[27], sending blessings upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) before the call of prayer (i.e. Salawat/Durud Qabl Azaan), supplication of Fatihah[28], and issue of reciting Salat upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using non-prophetic Durud/Salat.[29] Also upon joining Jhangvi community I had also become familiar with Qadiyanis and their teachings and realised the disputes of Ahnaf of subcontinent with Ghayr Muqallideen (i.e. non-conformist Wahhabism of subcontinent) but issues of Ahnaf vs Ghayr Muqallideen were never studied in my Deobandism years. Jhangvi community as opposed to KR-HCY forum had no restrictions on what subjects can be discussed and it was  Jhangvi community opened my eyes and introduced me to different sects and allowed me to gain knowledge about these sects through the lense of Deobandism.

Edited 8 مئی 2016 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

TwentyTwo - My Conversion To Deobandism:

I was aware that Deobandis like Wahhabis believe Muslims are engaged in Shirk but because they had not stated people of Arabia have fallen into major Shirk, which Wahhabism did/does teach. I was willing to reconcile the deobandi belief and tolerate understanding that ‘Muslims’ of subcontinent are indeed ‘Mushriks’ due to their practices. I had found no explicit evidence to suggest, nor realised implicit evidence in support of the understanding that Muslims of entire world will be free from major Shirk. I judged on explicit mention of Arabia in Hadith hence came to believe only Arabian Peninsula will be free from major Shirk until after the death of Muslims.[30] The issues relating to attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) such as Yadh (i.e. hand), Wajh (i.e. face), Saaq (i.e. shin) and others were not really problematic because I came to reconcile views of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah on these attributes with Maturidi Muwaffidah, believing Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is proponent of Tafwid but in his unique way.[31] So with few minor tweaks and adjustments I was a Deobandi and I had no difficulty in assimilating into Deobandism. Note, Deobandism and Wahhabism have between them only a single major issue [of attributes mentioned earlier in this section] in difference. The Tasawwuf aspect of Deobandism which involved purification of ones self was/is never really objected. And I was never part of Sufi side of Deobandism nor the people who introduced me to Deobandism were into Sufi roots of Deobandism. I cannot recall any of them ever mentioning about Kashf (i.e. unveiling), Muraqba (i.e. meditation) pledging obedience to a Shaykh, narrating miracles of saints. Looking back, I suspect my associates were Mamati Deobandis [which is a off-shoot of traditional Hayati Deobandism] because Mamatiyyah have distanced themselves from Sufi side of Deobandism maybe not completely but enough to not to persuade people to engage in it.[32] Note, adjustments required to fit into Deobandism were made without any persuation of Deobandi members. Nor there was any material on subject of Tafwid produced by Deobandis which influenced me to adopt position of [Maturidi] Muwaffidah.

TwentyThree – My Mission As A Fan Of Maulana Jhangvi:

As a Deobandi and of course part of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi fan club the top priority was to spread the message of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi which was simple – Shia are Kafir and this has to be made part of Pakistani constitution. As a result of these activities I had to propogate the message to ‘Barelwi’ friends, family members, and over the internet. While trying to gain converts for this cause amongst Muslims I was always met with hostility by those who knew about religion. Many times I was accused of being disrespecter, insulter of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but always dodged these accusations and refused to debate/discuss them with Muslims because I was never exposed to this side of Deobandism. Even though I had read Taqwiyat Ul Iman I had not realized the disrespect and insults directed at Ambiyah (alayhis salaam) and Awliyah of Allah. Note, my focus was to enroll people into mission of Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi. Even when I was quoted material of Taqwiyat Ul Iman by Muslims to point out disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shah Ismail Dehalvi I ignored the allegations, and never read material quoted nor engaged in discussion regarding these allegations for ‘greater’ good, and by that I mean for mission of Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi. Coming back to where I left of, a Muslim provided me link of a video of Maulana Kokab Noorani in which he quoted books of Deobandi major scholars and attempted to prove that these people insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I viewed some parts of video recording and reffered it to the members of Jhangvi community regarding the allegations levelled against Deobandi scholars and sect as whole. This started a chain of events which resulted in me being dragged into thick of Deobandi and Muslim issues of dispute. To know the ‘truth’ of these allegations levelled against Akabir Ulamah e Deoband (i.e. the great scholars of Deoband) I was instructed to read books written by major Deobandi scholar in defense of Deobandi major scholars. The very first book was, Al Muhannad Wal Mufannad by Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri which was followed by Ash-Shahab Us-Saqib by Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni. There was another book Taudheeh Ul Bayan Fi Hifz Ul Iman and this was also written by Maualana Hussain Ahmad Madni.[33] I am in doubt regarding when I read Ibaraat e Akabir of Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar - in the early period of my Deobandism or middle. Even though Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar is prominent apologist of Deobandism I cannot recall reading any of his books apart from the mentioned and even regarding that there is doubt. Other books were also read such as: Faisla Kun Munazra [original material prepared] by Maulana Manzoor Nomani, Bawariq Ul Ghayb by Maulana Manzoor Nomani, Munazra Ilm Ghayb [account of debate compiled] by Maulana Muhammad Ata’ullah Qasmi, Fat-ha Bareilly Ka Dil Kash Nazara[34] [account of debate compiled] by Maulana Muhammad Rafaqat Hussain. I also read Maulana Saeed Ahmad Qadri’s[35] book, Ahle Sunnat O Ahle Biddat Ki Pechan. In addition to these mentioned books many other were studied from Deobandi side naming them is not really important. Despite reading these books I have to say they did not sway me to follow Deobandi teachings but discussions on Jhangvi community were the main cause of my conversion to Deobandism hence I will mention some of the discussions which I had on the forum.

TwentyFour - Noor Or Bashr Debates:

As mentioned in part nine I was caught in Noor or Bashr (i.e. human) dispute. I was told that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Bashr and various verses of Quran were quoted to support this position. I was adamant that he is also Noor. They agreed that he is also Noor but Noor of guidance. They reasoned what is Noor cannot be Bashr because they are two opposites and they cannot be combined in one being.[36] And to this reasoning I agreed after all my logic told me two different creations cannot be one, cannot co-exist in one, or morph from one to another. I noted that Muslims always stated they believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be Bashr and Noor but the Deobandis presented the dispute as Noor Or Bashr – meaning they always debated/discussed the issue as if the Muslims negated Bashariat of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and only believed in his Nooraniat. Coming back to subject of Nooraniat, I presented the verse of Nooraniat: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a Noor and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] I presented the quoted verse and stated that Muslims believe he is Noor according to this verse and the commentators have stated Noor refers to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It was argued that Noor here refers to Quran because in many verses of Quran Noor is used for Quran, Taurat, etc. I agreed with them but said so why have the commentators stated that in this verse the word Noor reffers to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? It was explained that, yahdi-bihillahu is singular and wa (i.e. and) between nooruv wa kitabum is Tafseelia (i.e. further explanation) of Noor. In other words, if there were two things being mentioned then the singular would have been plural (i.e. yahdi bihikum ullah) and because it is singular it is proof that and between noor and kitab is explanatory – hence Noor is Kitab.[37] If I had better sense I would have realised and would have reasoned and questioned; the commentators who stated Noor refers to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were the cream of classical Islamic scholarship, and Arabic was their first language, and they also knew grammar just as good if not better then why would they state Noor refers to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? And are they heretics like the ‘Barelwis’ or is the office of Ifta is only in action against Muslims? Unfortunately, my lack of knowledge and comprehension meant they got better of me in discussions. Statements of Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi (rahimullah) and others were presented as ‘proof’ that Ahle Sunnat do not believe in Bashariat of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Yet in reality the quotes were about adressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Bashr and saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Bashr like me/you. In other words the statements were bemoaning lack of Adab (i.e. respect) in saying, he is Bashr like me/you. In other words they took the statements of Muslim scholars out of their context and assigned to them a meaning which was never had nor their authors intended. The worse part is that I never actually bathered to read the quotes/refferences to see if the content matches with what they are alleging. I read what they wrote, and skipped the references trusting Deobandis, and took their allegations as truthful. At the end when the boggie man was standing, then they came with verses of Quran which establish Bashariat, to refute what was nothing but figment of their imagination, yet I was in awe of Deobandi scholarship and knowledge.

TwentyFive – Shadow Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam):

Issue connected with Nooraniat of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Zill (i.e. shadow) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Ahle Sunnat believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not have shadow because he was Noor. The group of Deobandism I associated with did not believe in his Nooraniat hence they disputed this issue as well. They argued Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did have shadow and quoted me various Ahadith to prove that he did have shadow. I could not argue against their evidence hence I had to submit my judgment in favour of their position.[38]

TwentySix – Knowledge Of Ghayb Debate:

Then subject of Ilm Al Ghayb was discussed in Jhangvi community. On the topic of Ghayb my basic understanding of what constitutes Ghayb was in accordance with Ahle Sunnat hence I understood the Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw hell/paradise and heard the cries of people in graves, and seeing Musa (alayhis salaam) performing prayers in grave and informing about the events of future as him knowing knowledge of Ghayb. But during the heated discussions I was quoted verses of Quran which indicated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not have knowledge of Ghayb and if he had knowledge of Ghayb he would have amassed wealth. Coupled with verses of Quran which affirm Ghayb for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I eventually accepted only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ghayb and not Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The only conflicting point remaining in my understanding was according to the definition of Ghayb Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew Ghayb. It was explained to me, that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not have knowledge of Ghayb but only had itla alal ghayb, amba al ghayb, akhbar al ghayb, mushayda alal ghayb, but not ilm ghayb. I was told all the evidences which I consider to be evidence for Ilm Al Ghayb is either mushayda alal ghayb or amba alal ghayb ... but none qualifies as valid evidence for Ilm Al Ghayb. To further cement I was informed that what is revealed, seen, heard, is not ghayb, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) saw, heard, and he was told by Gibraeel (alayhis salaam) therefore it was not Ghayb. Pondering over what I was told and not knowing any better and ability to distinguish truth from falsehood I accepted and put it behind me blaming my lack of knowledge. Also subject of qull (i.e. all) Ghayb being given to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was discussed regarding which I had zero knowledge. Deobandi members informed me and explained the termonology of ‘Qull Ilm Ghayb’ employed by Muslims, by stating that the belief of Barelwis is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses all (i.e. qull) knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which they said is major Shirk and termed it shirk fil ilm (i.e. polytheism in knowledge). And I could not have agreed with anything less then this verdict after being informed of what the Ahle Sunnat believed. Due to all this, I had come to believe as vile, and disgusting Maulvi Sadiq Kohati and took same position as him which he took in Munazra against Muslim Aalim, Maulana Abdul Tawab Ucharvi.[39]

TwentySeven – Hadhir And Nazir:

By the time the subject of Hadhir Nadhir was discussed I had fallen in line with Jhangvi community’s environment and developed friendships with the members of forum. And anyone familiar with how associations work will connect with the following, easiest way to change someone’s belief is to befriend them gain their trust and never contradict them but agree with them and then refute them.[40] It’s a tactic which never fails. Coming back to subject of Hadhir Nadhir about which I had zero knowledge apart from remembering that words Hadhir Nadhir were part of slogans used in Mawlid marches. Slogan: Hazir O Nazir? Response: Sallallahu (i.e. peace be upon him)! So there was absolutely no resistance on this topic. Looking back then I can honestly say I had no idea what the words Hadhir Nadhir actually meant. I was told the words Hadhir means omnipresent Nadhir means omniscient (i.e. all seeing, all knowing). With it I was told Barelwi’s believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was present/Hadhir every where. I deduced that they mean physically or in meaning of soul of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being present in all places hence knows and sees everything. The verdict according to Deobandi/Salafi definitions of Shirk was; to believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Hadhir Nazir is Shirk. I was told; there is not a single Ayat/Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is stated to be Hadhir Nazir explicitly, and Barelwi’s have distorted many verses of Quran to prove their point. As stated earlier, I was aspiring to be next Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Being fan of Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) I was programed to demand and believe explicit evidence from Christians – Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) demands: One, single, unequivocal verse, where Jesus said I am God, or worship me. This style of demanding clear, explicit, emphatic evidence, had stuck with me even when judging Islamic issues as well. Hence none could produce it and therefore I was not willing to entertain the creed of Hadhir Nazir. Also I remember listening to a speech of Deobandi Maulvi whose line of argument against Hadhir Nazir was, if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was ‘sallam) was Hadhir Nazir every where then why did he go to Arsh for Meeraj he should have already been there. If he was Hadhir Nazhir then why the migration from Makkah to Madinah – one goes from a place to another to be present at the destination this proves he wasn’t Hadhir Nazir. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of Deobandi Aalim. Anyway at that time speech of Mawlvi made perfect sense and went well with the logic/rational line of thinking [I was heavily influenced by Shaykh Ahmed Deedat rahimullah alayhi ta’ala and his logical and rational way of refuting Christian opponents] so this made perfect sense to me and appealed to me. The Maulvi continued … if one believes he is Hadhir Nazir then he believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Imam during the prayers and he was muqtadi (i.e. one performing prayer behind a leader i.e. Imam) and he argued this Hadhir Nazir is foolishness due to it. Considering what was said and how Hadhir Nazir was defined to me I had no qualms about rejecting and declaring this to be Shirk – according to Salafist/Deobandi definition of exclusivity of attributes. Once I submitted my intellect to the mercy of members of forum. They provided me many ‘evidences’ to refute creed of Hadhir Nazir. They taught me to argue on basis of Ahadith, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not Hadhir Nazir if he was he would have known some of his companions became apostates after his death. He would not have addressed the apostates as companions had he known they had desserted religion of Islam and if he was Hadhir Nazir he would have known this. The angel informed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that they had become apostates after his death if he was Hadhir Nazir angel would have had no need to tell him this because he would have known this by seeing it. There were many such arguments tailored to refute creed of Hadhir Nazir but praise be to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who guided me and showed me the way of the Islam and enabled me to learn and refute the non-sence with sound reasoning and firm evidence.

TwentyEight – Sinless Prophet Or Sinner Prophet:

As far as my knowledge goes, or at the very least I remember, all Deobandis believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is free from major/minor sins in books of creed. Despite this belief their Urdu translations of Quran have not demonstrated this belief. Maulana Fateh Muhammad Jalandhari and Maulana Ahmad Ali Lahori, attributed sin to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in their  translation of verse, 48:2. Yet the classical texts of Islamic creed such as: Fiqah Akbar by Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Sharh Fiqah Akbar by Mullah Ali Qari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Sharh Muwaqif by Syed Shareef Al Jurjani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and Tamheed Abu Shakoor Salmi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), all unanimously stated Prophets are free from, mistakes, detestable actions, and major/minor sins, before and after receiving Prophet-hood. Due to the issue of Masoomiat (i.e. innocence) of Prophets from sins being disputed mainly by Ahle Hadith [non-conformist Wahhabi sect from subcontinent] I briefly researched on verse 45:2. After reading the Urdu translation of these two scholars I came to believe Prophets including Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did commit sins.

TwentyNine – Celebrating Mawlid Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam):

During my Salafi years I was vehemently opposed to celebrating Mawlid of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but upon reading the Fatawah (i.e. edicts) of Deobandi scholars I attempted to understand why would they permit celebration of Mawlid even though it was a innovation. I reasoned, if it was part of Deobandi sects features as it is central to Barelwis [aka Ahle Sunnat], or even if it wasn’t central but were known to celebrate it, then it would make sense that they would be flexibile. Yet the fact is, Deobandis are far from celebration of Mawlid just as Salafis were but one side demonised it as a sinful, heretical, and celebration of which takes to hellfire, and the other side allows it if certain conditions are met. My logic was, there has to be some reason for this flexibility shown by Deobandi scholars. I had to investigate this and to do this I had to begin from the beginning – revaluating my understanding of innovation.

Thirty – Closure Of Jhangvi Group:

Due to hostile and vulgar envoriment created by Deobandi and Shia members of Jhangvi community the community was closed due to infringment of rules. This resulted me loosing contact with members of community but this happened at a time when I was moderately informed Deobandi about teachings of the sect. Once I had lost touchwith my influences and got out of my comfort zone I began promoting positive image of Deobandism. Often I would high light similarities between Ahle Sunnat and Deobandism to bait members of Ahle Sunnat. I would point out to Deobandis being Hanafis, Ashari/Maturidi, followers of four Sufi Tariqahs (i.e. ways), Qadri, Naqshbandi, Soharwardi, Chishti, and point to both Barelwi and Deobandi having same ciraculum in Madaris, Muftis of both sides attesting Fatawah (i.e. edicts) of each other, their recitation of Shajra, Wazaif, Durud Shareef, point out so and so scholar wrote book on Fadhail of Durud Shareef, play down the differences, say the Maulvis lack of knowledge this is why they accuse of being Gustakh. Of course all this was done to ‘guide’ a Barelwi to correct understanding of Islam and intention was not to bait a unsuspecting Muslim.  The result of this strategy was that the TakeAway I worked at, its staff gradually began leaning toward Deobandi side. First I influenced my relative and he began to lean toward Deobandi side and bit of push from his Deobandi friend he joined the Deobandi cause. Me and my relative began to influence the staff with similar stratgey and his went on for about a year or so until most of the staff was pro-Deobandi but maybe not Deobandi. And then …

ThirtyOne – Defender Of Deobandi Elders:

In the beginning I was not aware actually what Ashraf Ali Thanvi himself wrote in his book Hifz Ul Iman.[41] And my understanding of his statement was based on Al Muhannad. Even if I was aware of the actual statement I very much doubt it would have made any difference to my convictions because I understood the controversial statement as saying, possessor of limited/partial knowledge of Ghayb cannot be Alim Ul Ghayb. If possessor of limited/partial knowledge of Ghayb was given the title of Aalim Ul Ghayb then every person, animal, madman, knows something which another does not know, so they all should be given the title of Aalim Ul Ghayb therefore why attribute this title uniquely to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! Note this understanding was of course result of Al Muhannad because Mawlana Thanvi did not explicitly state this. In those days I didn’t comprehend nor grasped the Ahle Sunnats view point and the reason of their opposition to what Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote. Members of Ahle Sunnat argued with me, Maulana Thanvi has compared the knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to commoners, animals, children and madman by using word ‘e-sa’ (i.e. like, such). Upon investigation and looking up Hifz Ul Iman, I found the statement to be different from what author of Al Muhannad had presented but agreed with explanatory additions made in Al Muhannad to explain the text of Hifz Ul Iman. Despite the best efforts of members of Ahle Sunnat I remained unmoved and continued to defend the statement as understood by me. Due to firm conviction that agitation against scholars of Deoband was just invented. The cause of this conviction was statement of Hifz Ul Iman which I found to be hundred percent in line with teaching of Islam and insistance of members of Ahle Sunnat to convince me; it is disrespectful, only resulted me dismissing scholarship of Ahle Sunnat. Hence when the issue of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s disciple reciting Durud upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi with the following words: "Allahumma salli ala sayyidina wa nabeeyina wa maulana Ashraf Ali ..." and reciting Kalimah of Thanvi: ‘La Ilah-ha Il-Allah Ashraf Ali RasoolAllah.’, came to be discussed with me I never really paid any attention and took typical Deobandi line of response – it was dream.[42] I could not muster the courage to defend statement of Maulana Ismail Dehalvi in Sirat e Mustaqeem in which he stated - to focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse then drawning in thoughts of your bull and donkey due to fear of Shirk. Despite this I always believed that he had good intentions and what he wrote was to prevent Shirk creeping into prayers. Also states of Ismail Dehalvi, "… every creation may he be great or lowly compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiayatul Iman, page 20, Urdu] "Allah's exalted glory is such that all Prophets and friend of Allah infront of Him are less then speck of nothingness." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 74, urdu] My understanding of these statements was that creation is indeed nothing compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence what Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi wrote is absolutely fine. Only over zealous impassioned by jealousy due to success of Deobandis in converting Barelwis has resulted in antagonism against Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi. The following statement like the statement of Sirat e Mustaqeem I could not come to defend, "I will one day die and then decay and will be part of dust." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] It was agreed by all Muslims that Prophets are alive in their graves and their bodies do not decompose and there is plenty of evidence to support this position of Muslims from books of Ahadith. I placed this into category of Ijtihadi mistakes made by Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi. Kufria statements of Maulana Qasim Nanotavi were discussed with me but my response was typical Deobandi polemic, first; Ala Hadhrat distorted the actual statements in such a fashion that he through his distortion made the statements appear to be Kufria. Second, Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat completely removed the word bil Zaat to negate every Fadheelat (i.e. merit). Thirdly, Ala Hadhrat omitted the context of three statements to hide the actual meaning of statements. As I read from Mawlana Manzoor Nomani’s book I translated it into my response. Never actually compared what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat wrote of Tadhir Un Naas in his Hussam Ul Haramain, nor actually read Tadhir Un Naas myself, just repeated material of Mawlana Manzoor Nomani without verifying anything.

ThirtyTwo – Disagreement Over Definition Of Innovation:

My earliest disagreement with Deobandism was based on understanding of subject of innovation. I had learnt every innovation was evil and there is no good innovation. In the first time reading of Tazkirat Ul Ikhwan of Ismail Dehalvi I was not aware of differences in definition of innovation and even if I was aware I must have either deliberately suppressed the desire to investigate the difference or ignored it. In the second reading of book, then I was more in tune with sectarian differences. So I took notice of material in Tazkirat Ul Ikhwan.[44] What Ismail Dehalvi wrote is fundamentally reflected by me in the introduction of following article, here. And I decided to investigate his statement to see if it was in accordance with the teaching of Quran and Ahadith – outcome was decisively in favour of Ahle Sunnat. In other words, classification of innovation as good and bad was substantiated. This went against my understanding of innovation according to which every innovation was bad. Despite this I held to the definition taught to me by Wahhabi friends [which was never challenged or refuted by Deobandis] simply because Shah Ismail Dehalvi had termed the difference of definitions as a valid form of difference. Hence I saw no reason to leave Deobandism or doubt it’s basis. My understanding remained same, innovations into Islam are not prohibited, period.

ThirtyThree - Learning Islamic Understanding Of Innovation:

The previous section findings were maybe early to middle 2003. Like stated above it I did not doubt the Deobandi sectarian position at that juncture of time. This episode which I am about to write, was near the end of 2004. Prior to which my position regarding innovation was that, every innovation was evil, and in light of Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi’s understanding every reprehensible innovation was evil. Introducing innovations into Islam was equal to disbelieving in perfection of Islam and it was equal to believing that Islam was incomplete and needs more to be completed. Then I stumbled upon a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated, whosoever introduces a good Sunnah into Islam for him there is reward and those who follow it, here. I found various interpretations but none of them really satisfied my intellectual curosity. One was that word Sunnah was used for a practice which is already part of Islam. This fitted OK’ish with those Ahadith which did not have words ‘into Islam’ as part of Hadith but Hadith of Muslim had these words part of it. Hence I was not satisfied with this explanation and continued my investigation into the Hadith. I noted that Hadith of Muslim continues and states, whosoever introduces a bad Sunnah into Islam for him there is blame and those who follow it, here. I read another Hadith which has same implications but there the word Sunnah was replaced with Biddah, here, here, and here. So I became convinced that word Sunnah was not in meaning of Sunnah but it is in meaning of innovation in this Hadith. Yet despite this powerful evidence that words Sunnah and Biddah can be interchanged and have been interchanged in similar meaning Ahadith, I was reluctant to allow leap of faith. Partly it was due to lack of confidence in personal judgment and lack of trust, and partly because I had grown fond of Wahhabi/Deobandi teachings and found it difficult to let go. The most compelling proof came against my Wahhabi/Deobandi understanding when I realised that, linguistic meaning of innovation is something which is new and which already did not exist. And in terms of Shariah the usage of innovation is mean something which is not already part of Islam, therefore when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is stating, introducing Sunnahs in to Islam there is reward, he means, whosoever introduces good innovations [or good innovative Sunnahs] into Islam for that person there is reward and one who follows it.And backing of this is that if a Sunnah was already part of Islam then it cannot and couldn’t be made part of Islam, only which is not part of Islam can be made part of Islam. Therefore word Sunnah is in meaning of innovation. Proof of usage of word Sunnah as synonym of Biddah was already known to me. This flipped my Wahhabi/Deobandi understanding on its head and it was a complete hundred-eighty turn, from my previous position. In other words now I believed the perfection/completion of Islam is not harmed if a innovation is made part of Islam. After this I spent time validating and authenticating my findings and harmonising contradicting evidence. This continued until after my conversion to Ahle Sunnat. There were many important aspects which needed figuring out. Like how a practice can be made part of Islam and yet perfection/completion of Islam mentioned in Quran remains intact? Or how is one, not guilty of nullifying his belief in perfection/completion of Islam by accepting innovations can be made part of Islam? These two doubts which plagued my mind were answered when researched them from Quran and Sunnah, here, here, and here. Out of my [thirty-two] articles on subject of innovation, most are result of my own struggle, and were written in answer to my own doubts regarding my new understanding. Some of these articles were dedicated to point out fault of literalism of Hadith: “… every innovation is misguidance.” Others were dedicated explaining how a innovated Sunnah can be made part of Islam without actually making addition to deen of Islam taught by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). All these articles are available in the following link and anyone interested should search the titles of threads, here. All articles have been appropriately named according to subject discussed in them hence will be easy to find but following article in form of Q&A would be brilliant start to gain general knowledge about Islamic understanding, here. It should be pointed out that even educated Wahhabis admit; Muslim and Wahhabi definitions can be reconciled with evidence of Ahadith. The real issue of dispute between us is that they do not accept; Islam permits Muslims to introduce new innovations/practices into Islam – as long as these practices/innovations do not contradict Islamic teaching and are composed of Islamicly sanctioned activities. Like I already stated, reasearch into validating/authenticating my new understanding continued even after I had become orthodox Muslim. Another thing I want to point out is; I had not read any book from orthodox Islamic perspective which directed me toward this direction, this was me carrying out research with guidance of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), paintently and meticulously. The only pointer came from Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s Tazkiratul Ikhwan and I noted Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has brought this to my attention for my good, and I jumped on this opportunity, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guided me to straight path which He had destined for me. This new development was very powerful reason which helped me to decide to join orthodox Islam because this was only where I could fit in with my new understanding – which incidently meant I became orthodox Muslim – member of Ahle Sunnat.

ThirtyFour - Understanding Nooraniat Of Prophet From Chapter 5 Verse 15:

Before I proceed to write about the actual topic I want to point out that my belief in life was never, ‘only truth is my sect’ almost all times, my objective was and is, to be guided to truth and to be upon straight path. So I never shunned study of opposing point of view nor closed the gates of investigation on any topic while being member of any sect. I always have and continue to study and revise my understandings, and refined, or discarded after revaluation. It was part of this revision, consolidating already established, discarding already established, type of research that I took to browsing on internet to look for material on Nooraniyyah from orthodox Islam point of view. I stumbled upon audio speech of a Maulvi whose name I would not like to mention due to his heretical views and going against the teaching of traditional Islam in favour of Shia’ism – hence forth Maulvi Ananymous. I was stunned after listening to Maulvi Ananymous. Maulvi Ananymous made a brilliant point which I had not heard ever before nor I ever received any refutation to his this point which warranted a serious study. He basicly stated, people argue over Nooraniat in verse 5:16, some say by Noor Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) meant Quran, others say he meant Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The verse states: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] Following is foundation of discussion to follow. In the verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has mentioned that quality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is “…making clear to you much of what you used to conceal…”  They ‘the people of Book’ concealed due to their own darkness revelation given to Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) in which birth and Prophet-hood of our Prophet was mentioned.[45] This is why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that He brings them (i.e. people of book) out from darkness into light: “By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses to the light,…” [Ref: 5:16] “Allah is the Wali of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness to light.” [Ref: 2:257] Alhasil, the people of book were in darkness. Why has Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) tasked Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to reveal what they concealed? And this is answered in the following verse: “It is He Who sends down manifest verses to His slave that He may bring you out from darkness to light. And verily, Allah is to you full of kindness, Most Merciful.” [Ref:57:9] The one who has been tasked to bring them out of darkness, is our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If one is in darkness himself, such cannot be guide to those who are in darkness. So fundamentally, the guide has to be with Noor and in the context of religion, guide has to be upon Noor, and this much is agreed by all parties. The dispute is over if the guide, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has to be Noor. The means (i.e. Quranic verses) to bringing them out of darkness and into Noor [of Islam] have to be Noor.[46] Noor makes clear and it reveals what is concealed in darkness – this is quality of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as stated in verse: “…making clear to you much of what you used to conceal…” Hence the Messenger whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had tasked to bring the ahle kitab out of darkness into Noor, also has to be Noor because Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has stated that he reveals what was concealed by Ahlul Kitab [in darkness]. This is very nature of Noor because it reveals, it brings to light what is concealed in darkness. Hence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is being addressed as Noor in following part of verse: "There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] Putting it simply, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Quran, and ultimately Islam, all are Noor, and have to be Noor. Another point mentioned by Maulvi Ananymous was, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’ssallam): “…making clear to you much of what you used to conceal…” [Ref: 5:15] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) makes clear via revelation of Quran what the people of book concealed. Hence in the verse there is mention of (1) the Prophet (2) making clear with revelation of Quran [what the people of book concealed]. Therefore it is only appropriate to mention at the end, the two - Prophet and the book, as a summary of the verse: “There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] These two points once grasped add upto irrefutable argument in support of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being addressed as Noor in verse 5:15. On top of this explaination, when I considered that nearly all commentators of Quran interpreted Noor to mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) I had little to no choice but to admit the Noor in the verse refers to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Iblees did throw spanner in the works. I rationalised, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Noor, but Noor of guidance, and not Noor e Mujassim (i.e. Noor in Jism). This kept my Deobandism a float for a while.

ThirtyFive – Enter Allama Kazmi Said Prophet Is Noor Mutliq:

I was bit nervous/worried to listen to speech of another scholar of Ahle Sunnat. I wasn’t willing to listen to another speech because it was emotionally, mentally draining, and depressing. Here you are striving your best making sure you have exhorted all effort to find correct understanding and worried about your hereafter. Am I amongst the ones who will succeed or will I be amongst the loosers? Then you realise well so far you have been amongst the loosers. Did I want to listen to speech of another orthodox scholar to find out if I am I still amongst the loosers? No! Few months later after listening to Maulvi Ananymous I was precisely searching for the truth because I did not want to be amongst the looser. And I had realised that I cannot make Taweel of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Noor to Noor of guidance without being need for it. We interpret the zahir (i.e. apparent) of mutashabihat (i.e. ambigous/unclear) verses and give it figurative meaning because the apparent of these verses cannot be reconciled with what is known from verses which are muhkam (i.e. clear, emphatic). This was principle on basis of which I interpreted and agreed with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Noor in meaning of light of guidance. As my knowledge increased so did I realise that according to this principle Nooraniyyah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can also be in literal meaning.[47] So I began to research on this aspect to see what is the position of orthodox Islam on this principle. This is when I found speech of Ghazali of modern era, Allama Saeed Ahmad Qazmi (alayhi rahma), and his speech shook my foundations. Originally it was on website called NooreMadinah and it was there where I heard it but the link is not working so here is a

link to it. Coming to speech, Allama Saeed Ahmad Qazmi (alayhi rahma) stated Noor is mutliq (i.e. general, or unrestricted) in verse 5:15. I knew ‘yahdi’ in verse sixteen was singular, therefore I concluded it refers to the kitab al mubeen and not to Noor, which validated his position. In other words Noor here is manavi (i.e. metaphorical) expression [Noor of guidance, faith, Islam, light] and is in haqiqi (i.e. literal) in meaning - Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Noor in jism(i.e. body) - and this understanding is supported by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in following verse: “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And one who invites to Allah , by His permission, and an shining lamp.” [Ref: 33:45/46] Other doubts, if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Noor then why was there darkness around him during night? Or if he was Noor, they why did he not emit visible Noor? All these arguments were soundly answered by Allama Kazmi Sahib (rahmatullah alayhi ta’ala). He explained even darkness is made from Noor hence presence of darkness of night around Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not refute his Nooraniat. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not emitting visible light is not against his Nooraniat because the angels are Noor [and this is agreed by all] yet there was no light when Gibraeel (alayhis salaam) visited in form of man nor there is visible light emitting from angels, nor heat, or fire emitting from Jinn even though they are made up of it. Secondly he said, every Noor does not emit light which our eyes can register. Angels are Noor and present yet neither our sight can pick up their Noor, nor can any equipment we have made. His point was not all Noor is visible, light like sun rays. In my own words, magneticism exists but it can only be felt when a magnet attracts or repels another magnet, or attract a metal. Similarly the Nooraniah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was so lateef (i.e. subtle) that it could only be felt by the ones around him who were purified by him.[48] He did not cite any refferences but I was personally aware of evidence which corroborated his position. I had in my possession, English translation Mawlana Zakriyah Kandhalvi Deobandi’s commentory of Shamail Al Tirmadhi, also known as Shamail Al Muhammadiyyah, which I had read. And I connected the dots from his commentary. The Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not visible to ordinary eye but its effect in its absence was felt immediately by companions: "The day Messenger came to Madinah, everything in Madinah became illuminated. The day when he passed away, 'everything of Madinah became dark. We had not yet dusted off the dust from our hands after the burial when we began to feel the change in our hearts."[49] [Ref: Shamail Muhammadiyyah, B53, H375] Another Hadith records a Sahabi who saw Noor emitting from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and concluded that his Noor was more radiant then Noor of full moon: “I once saw Messenger of Allah on the night of a full moon. On that night he wore red clothing. At times I looked at the full moon and at times at Messenger of Allah. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that Messenger of Allah was more handsome, beautiful, and more radiant than the full moon." [Ref: Shama’il Al Muhammadiyyah, B1, H9] Criteria of seeing the radiating Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was and is; one is from amongst the Momineen, and has been granted the vision by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to see the Noor. These two Ahadith point to purification of Nafs (i.e. self) reached by the two companions. One had purified himself enough to feel the absence of Noor and on setting of darkness which began to change the condition of hearts of people. The other achieved such a thorough purification of Nafs that he saw the Noor emitting from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and compared it with brightness of full-moon and believed Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was more complete and perfect. Lastly I will adress the principle which I mentioned, ‘interpret the zahir (i.e. apparent) of mutashabihat (i.e. ambigous/unclear) verses and give it figurative meaning because the apparent of these verses cannot be reconciled with what is known from verses which are muhkam (i.e. clear, emphatic).’ On basis of which I agreed with figurative meaning was; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Bashr, Noor and Bashr cannot co-exist, Noor is [always] emits light, and Noor does not eat, Noor does not have children. Then I realised, indeed Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) visited RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) inform of Bashr/Insan (i.e. human), and this proved, Noor and Bashr can co-exist, and Noor does not always emit light. With regards to Noor not eating and Noor not having [human] off-spring, I came to understanding, after listening to speech or maybe it was debate of Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad, that these are qualities of Insan/Bashr and because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was human he would eat, had children, and was injured in battles, slept during night, and got old with age. With this understanding I came to realise that there is no real basis for denial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Noor in Jism other then desire of not wanting to believe it. A complete and thorough investigation into the subject of Nooraniyyah was carried out after becoming othordox Muslim. The issue of Awaliyyah (i.e. First-ness) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was connected with issue of Nooraniyyah.[50] A complete study of Awaliyyah done under guidance of Allama Manzoor Ahmad Faizi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) book, Maqam e Rasool. Despite acquiring this knowledge of creed of orthodox Islam I was unsure about my moving to greener pastures of orthodoxy. Mainly due to uncertainties emanating from Iblees and beginning with, what if. Cutting the long story short, Maulvi Ananymous, Allama Syed Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Allama Saeed Ahmad Assad, Allama Manzoor Ahmad Faizi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) greatly effected my understandings on subject of Nooraniat from academic and from Quranic perspective.

ThirtySix – Old VS Modern - Deobandi Scholarship On Nooraniat:

I have already stated; I was told belief in Nooraniyyah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not belief of Maulana Ismail Dehalvi, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. General impression created on this was that this belief is against the teaching of major Deobandi scholars. No one bathered pointing out to me that Mawlana Thanvi has narrated the Hadith of Awaliyyah and Nooraniyyah of Prophet (sallallahu alay wa aalihi was’sallam), maybe they were not aware themselves, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows better. Anyway the content of the Hadith is:“It is narrated by Imam Abdur Razaq from Mua'mar, from Ibn al-Mankadr, from Jabir ibn said, I enquired from Messenger of Allah: What [creation] did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) create first of all? He said: O Jabir, Noor of your Nabi was created first by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and then created all good from it and thereafter created all things. When [Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] created this Noor then it was kept on station of nearness for twelve thousand years, then divided it into four parts. From one part [Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] created Arsh and Kursi, and …” [Ref: Musannaf Abdur-Razaq,Vol1, H18] First time when I heard this Hadith, it was discussed by Allama Syed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his speech which I refferenced above. I was curious to know the source of Hadith so I began searching for the first phrase, O Jabir, first thing Allah created was the Noor of your Prophet, I visited few forums nothing of actual source was produced. The members of the forum despite failing to produce a source did manage to quote, Nashar at-Teeb of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. I already had possessed copy of Nashr ut-Teeb Fi Zikr al-Nabi Al Habib[51] so I promptly checked if the Hadith was part in the book and to my surprise the mentioned Hadith was in it, so I had no choice but to admit Nooraniyyah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). My take on what I was told by my co-religionists on Jhangvi was that maybe they didn’t know Maulana Thanvi believed in Nooraniyyah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Then I specificly asked the members of forum if Mawlana Shah Ismail Dehalvi believed in Nooraniyyah. Low and behold the news, they produced the evidence. They provided two refferences of Mawlvi Ismail Dehalvi. First was, a book published as, Kalam Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed, see here. It is a poetical work and its poetical verses establish that Ismail Dehalvi believed; Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was first creation and Noor was seperated into four parts … Basicly his poetical lines attest Hadith which states, first creation was Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In other words Mawlvi Ismail Dehalvi validated Allama Kazmi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. My orthodox opponent also stated Mawlvi Ismail Dehalvi has confirmed this Hadith in his booklet, Yak Roza. He could not provide evidence/scanned image of said text but did provide the scan of title page of Yak Roza. Even though I did believe him and had no reason to doubt his credibility I desired to actually see it for myself. And desire was realised, on IslamiMehfil forum, in 2009, in a discussion which revovled about publication of Part of Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, here. The elders of Deobandi sect including what Mawlvi Qasim Nanotavi has believed and taught, see Qasaid e Qasmi, here. Note 2009 was when I had already left Deobandism for orthordox Islam for number of years. Any way returning to my Deobandi days, this evidence created confusion in my mind with regards to actual position of Deobandi sect. I had already lost touch with members of Jhangvi community hence I could not refer to them to resolve my confusion. So I blamed this inconsistancy upon the members of Jhangvi community, who were my mentors, terming it lack of their knowledge and not fault in Deobandi sectarian position. As I investigated to see what is actual Deobandi belief on Nooraniyyah this position could not be maintained because it became clear to me that modern Deobandi sect does not teach the creed of Nooraniyyah but their elders held to this belief.[52] Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) also stated this very fact in his, Risala e Noor, see pages one and two, here. When I became Sunni I studied the lives of scholars of Deoband and as a result came to believe that Mawlvi Qasim Nanotavi, Mawlvi Ismail Dehalvi, Mawlvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi and other major scholars of Deobandi madrassa got influenced by Wahhabism and Mutazilite theology and abandoned their earlier beliefs and marched toward new direction without actually declaring it openly. This is why their followers disbelieved in Nooraniyyah as it was stated in their books and rather then stating their elders had moved on from beliefs, they resorted to distorting the obvious meanings of what their major scholars had written.[53]

ThirtySeven - Unexpected Turn Of Events:

It was sometime near the end of 2005 that I was sitting out side my house with Beshti Zewar (i.e. Heavenly Ornaments) written by Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Qari Ismail Sahib had taught me Tajweed as a child when my regular teacher Qari Maroof Sahib went for Hajj. I was from Pakistan so respect for the teachers was ingrained in my nature. So I got up, greeted him with Salam, and out of ordinary asked him what his opinion was regarding this book. I handed him the book and he read maybe a paragraph from it and turned to look at its cover. His reaction was of shock and moved his head away from the cover as if something was about to jump out of the book to attack him. He quickly folded the book and handed it back to me and said something which pierced my soul: “Yeh Allah kay Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ka gustakh heh aur is ki kitab ko par kar tummeh kuch faida nahin hoga.”[54] My take was Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi has a huge scholarly clout and his contribution toward reformation of Ummah is so huge that he simply cannot be guilty of such hideous act. So I asked him Qari Sahib what has he written which is proof that he insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Even though I was perfectly aware of what he was reffering to. He replied, in Hifz Ul Iman, he has written knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not unique because knowledge like of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by every Tom, Dick, Harry, child, madman, every type of animal, the translation of which was presented in footnote 39. The way he emphasised the words it opened my heart to a new dimension. First time I actually felt there was indeed disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In response to his allegations against Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi I had nothing to say to him in defence of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had just planted a realisation into my heart. In state of bewilderment I asked, Qari Sahib, where did he say this, give me proof? He mentioned the name of book and said he does not have the book in his possession, he said listen to video of Mawlana Kokab Noorani, here and you will find it being shown in the video clip. Instead I went to internet and for the first time in my life actually attempted to understand what is written in Hifz Ul Iman. I became aware of disrespect in the statement of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Basicly he compared the [some/partial] knowledge of Ghayb of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with Ghayb knowledge of animals, and denied uniquesness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in having knowledge of Ghayb by saying there is no difference in knowledge of Ghayb possessed by him and them. Also the type language used by Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is often used in a tone to belittle another. Here Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi compared the Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to Ghayb knowledge of children, madman, and animals. The principle is, when a honourable is equalled with lowly through comparision and comparision results in belittling of honourables status then disrespect via belittling is intended and always is implied. I realised through study that, knowledge of Ghayb granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is definitive and it included revelation of Quran. There was no proof for chilren, madman and animals possessing any knowledge of Ghayb whatsoever. Yet despite this he compared Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb to those for whom there is no proof of it. I understood that Mawlana Thanvi believed, animals, madman, children possess knowledge of Ghayb as it is popularly believed by ignorant masses. I was also aware that he might not have intended to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but only intended to state this belief without intending to inslut or disrespect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or even ever realising what he wrote has a disrespectful dimension. Despite what he intended, the manner in which he phrased his belief is disrespectful and no excuse remove the insult/disrespect directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I also studied the Tafsir of verse and derived the injunction from it: "...Say not (to the Messenger): word raina, but say undhurna [i.e. look upon us]; and listen (to him): For those without Faith (kaffireen) is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Basicly the verse is saying, do not use language to address Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which can be distored and used to disrespect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Instead use language which cannot be distorted to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I figured the languge of Hifz Ul Iman is not being distorted to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) rather finger is being pointed toward a another dimension/meaning of the statement which is disrespectful. Aslo read Bast Al Banan and Tagheer Ul Unuwan, which were related to Hifz Ul Iman. Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi made excuse that he did not intend to insult nor even the thought of it came to his mind. My understanding was, nor did the companions intended to insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) specificly forbade them from using word ra’ina. Hence Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi was duty bound to mend his ways, and alter the statement in Hifz Ul Iman so it does not belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and repent from it. He also argued e’sa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna (i.e. this much).[55] In other words, Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is removing explicit comparision from his statement. He fails to realise there is still implicit comparision of knowledge because he has equalled the knowledge of children, madman, animals to knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In Tagheer Ul Unuwan, he correctly altered the statement, removing all types of Tashbih and disrespect from it, but he explicitly stated that he has not deemed it essential or correct to alter the statement. This means, he did not admit the wrongness of his statement, but only altered it to deflect criticism. Also he did not disown or order the change of statement in original Hifz Ul Iman and this further is proof that he did not deem it offensive. Hence the burden of Kufr remains upon him.

ThirtyEight – Joke Is On Deoband:

While I was researching position of Muslims on this statement of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi I bumped into book of Mawlana Hashmi Miyan, Lataif e Deoband (i.e. Jokes of Deoband), page 26 onwards. On Hifz Ul Iman, he quotes Ash-Shihab as-Saqib: Thanvi Sahib used word e’sa (i.e. like this) not itna (i.e. this much), if it was itna then there was possibility that he euqalled the knowledge of RasoolAllah with other things.Yet Mawlana Thanvi Sahib argued e’sa was used in meaning of itna in Bast Al Banan. In other words, in light of Mawlana Hussain Ahmad Madani’s understanding, Mawlana Thanvi Sahib equalled the knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Further he stated, esa is for comparision, and Mawlana Thanvi Sahib attempted to argue esa is in meaning of ‘this much’ hence there is no comparision. Shortening the long story, there are two groups of Deobandi scholars, and both give the statement meaning according to which other is guilty of Kufr. Group one, believes it is for comparision if it was for sake of equalling the knowledge it would be Kufr. Group two believes it is for sake of equalling knowledge and if it was for sake of comparision it would be Kufr. In other words, in light of group one, group two is guilty of Kufr because they believe statement of Hifz Ul Iman is in meaning of euqalling the knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). According to group two, group one is guilty of Kufr because they believe the statement is in meaning of comparision. Alhasil, both groups are guilty of Kufr according to each other and we say both groups are correct in their understanding. In other words Muslims believe statement is Kufr in both meanings. Also I noted there is no uniformity amongst the Deobandi scholars on the usage of ‘esa’ and depending on how far the apple has fallen from Mawlana Thanvi, the Mawlvi understands the statement of Hifz Ul Iman in his own way – all contradicting and belieing each other. And I realised lack of uniformity between these Deobandi scholars is result of wanting to cover up the disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by hook or crook. Also realised the ikhtilaf between the Muslims and Deobandis is not as simple as I once thought and I need to investigate other issues. I made a last ditched effort to get a explanation of the statement from a Deobandi website but I have been unable to locate this website again. To my dismay they completely denied the existance of such statement in Hifz Ul Iman and that was last straw. After I exhausted all effort in understanding the meaning of Hifz Ul Iman and not being satisfied with explanations and finding solid refutation for each excuse I decided to leave Deobandism. And the very first action I took was to march into the Takeaway I worked in and informed all the staff which me and my relative had swayed toward Deobandism; Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi was indeed guilty of insulting and belittling Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and I am no longer a Deobandi, I rather be be labelled Barelwi, even with my Deobandi beliefs, because Barelwi do not and did not insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). My partner in crime, the owner of Takeaway mocked me, and advanced typical Deobandi argument, scholar of such status cannot and could not this – it makes no sense. This started between me and him a debate process which continued for number of years but al hamdu lillah through trial by error and corrections I made head way with the staff and began to undo the damage I had done to belief of Muslims. Until only person who remained on Deobandism and that was my relative, the owner of Takeaway. Arguments, evidence, could not sway him, until he had a dream and woke up with mind made-up; Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and therefore Kafir. I do not believe that he was a staunch Deobandi rather he was assimilating into Deobandism gradually – and at very slow pace because he did not study books of Deobandism, but he was influenced serious enough to send his sons into Deobandi Mosque on Western Road. Had I not turned my back toward Deobandism I suspect gradually he would have become a staunch Deobandi but despite his semi-Deobandism, he argued, debated, discussed, relentlessly against the Islamic positions. Here I have basicly skipped the debates which me and my relative had on issue of Hadhir Nazir and Ilm Al Ghayb of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

ThirtyNine - Islamic Perspective Regarding Ghayb Of Prophet:

Even though I said I would prefer to be called Barelwi despite my Deobandi creed. I never intended to be part of Ahle Sunnat and didn’t want to be part of Ahle Sunnat. When ever I discussed with my relative about statement of Hifz Ul Iman I always refferenced my material back to scholars of Ahle Sunnat – from whom the material was taken. Hence his criticism was directed at them but I was responding to his criticism hence it gave impression that I had adopted Barelwism. Knowingly or unknowingly, he windened the subject of debate to Ilm Al Ghayb and Hadhir Nazir, arguing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not have knowledge of Ghayb and was not Hadhir Nazir. His initial argument was or at least this is how I remember it; well you know the Barelwis are wrong in these two beliefs and they are wrong on many others, how could their scholarship be reliable when they have already made mistakes. My response was, definitely the scholars were not mistake-less and sin-less but on this point Ahle Sunnat’s scholarship is reliable. I was convinced that position against Hifz Ul Iman was correct but it bathered me that I am unable to address the objection head on. I was trying to address his argument best of my knowledge – Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Malik (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) all had contradicting positions to each other and had positions in agreement with each other yet despite their disagreements we do not dismiss the entire scholarship of Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Malik (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), so why should be reject whole scholarship of Ahle Sunnat? Point I am trying to make was; even though I had no intention of becoming Barelwi I was kind of forced into it due to circumstances. I was defending a position which was held by them. I originally intended to sit on the fence and disassociate from all sects and study from Quran and Hadith. What I ended up doing was defending a position held by Ahle Sunnat and as a result had to establish why the entire scholarship of Ahle Sunnat is not wrong but parts maybe. Now, to defend, or to reject, the scholarship of Ahle Sunnat I had to know what they have stated – this required study. My relative’s argument would resurface time and again, then I decided to investigate the issue of Ilm Al Ghayb to prove their understanding is wrong from Quran and Hadith perspective. Intending to actually weaken his argument by saying their position is contrary to teaching of Quran and Hadith, and their position is correct on issue of Hifz Ul Iman according to Quran and Hadith. Wanting to tackle the issue of Ilm Al Ghayb I started to learn about the creed of Ahle Sunnat on subject of Ilm Ghayb of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I read parts of Jaa Al Haq related to topic of Ilm Al Ghayb [and Hadhir Nazir]. Imam Ul Munazireen, Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad, had a debate on subject of,

, with a Ghayr-Muqallid Wahhabi, Mawlvi Rehmatullah Rabbani, in this debate Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad, had completely and utterly anahilatd his opponent academicly. I remembered his academic credentials and I was thoroughly impressed with his knowledge during my Deobandi days, so I began looking for his speeches on subject of Ilm Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I purchased a VHS from Madinah Book Store and sat down to listen to him. Scholars always memorise the material of their speeches and they almost repeat it word for word on every occasion, hence I am pretty sure Mawlana Saeed Assad’s following speech on this topic must be pretty close to the one I heard, here. The one I actually purchased was when his beard was black with few grey hair in his beard. Following debates on Ilm Al Ghayb were also listened to, by me and my relative: Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad VS Mawlana Yunus Nomani,

, and their second debate/discussion, here. Regarding following two debates I am unsure if my relative had oppurtunity to listen to, but I certainly did: Mawlana Abdul Tawab Siddiqi VS Mawlvi Sadiq Kohati Deobandi,

. Mawlana Rana Muhammad Arshad Qadri VS Mawlana Muhammad Tayyib Salafi, here. In both these debates, opponents of Muslim scholars make a fool of themselves. In the first debate between Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad VS Yunus Nomani, I was not fully aware of Islamic definition of Ilm Al Ghayb therefore I was unsure about the out come of the debate. By the time I got to their second debate, I figured that Muslims use simple definition of Ilm Al Ghayb equals, knowledge which cannot be acquired through ordinary five senses. Originally I was of opinion that there is no proof for Ilm Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to deny having knowledge of Ghayb, 6:50, 7:188 and 11:31. On basis of following verses I had concluded only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has knowledge of Ghayb, 6:59, 6:73, 9:94, 9:105, 10:20, 11:123, 16:77, 18:26, 27:65, and 59:22. Yet there was Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad quoting evidence from Quran which established Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was given knolwedge of Ghayb, and evidence follows: 3:179, 11:49, 12:102, 72:26/27, and 81:24. In addition to these verses there are numerous Ahadith which establish Ilm Ghayb of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallma). In addition to these two debates, another I got my hands on another debate of Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad, in audio casset format from Tariq Gift Centre, Carlisle Road, Bradford. It was between Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad VS a Deobandi Maulvi Abdullah – Debate took place some where in Pakistan, Mandi Kalay Ki. This was the debate in which Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad demolished every argument presented by Mawlvi Abdullah Deobandi and I had no choice but to acknowledge the defeat of Deobandis. The long three our discussion/debate between Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad was enough to show the truth of Islamic understanding over Deobandi understanding. Listening to these few debates I had then realised the fundamental reason of dispute between Islamic scholarship and understanding of Deobandi sect was the two definitions of Ilm Al Ghayb.

Forty - Definition Of Ghayb And Understanding Contradicting Verses:

Deobandi understanding was/is; Ilm Al Ghayb is of one who has His own (i.e. Zaati) knowledge of Ghayb and one who is granted Ghayb does not and cannot have knowledge of Ghayb. This understanding was refuted with verse of 72:26/27. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Knower of the Ghayb (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone. Except approved Messengers, and indeed, He sends before each Messenger and behind him observers.” I noted that according to Deobandi’s Ilm Al Ghayb is only of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore the verse means: “Knower of the Ghayb (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His [knowledge of the] Ghayb to anyone. Except approved Messengers, and indeed ...” Which means Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants His knowledge of Ghayb, or Ilm Al Ghayb. This refuted Deobandi position that Ilm Al Ghayb can only be Zaati like of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The verse establishes Ilm Al Ghayb can also be Atahi (i.e. granted) like of which is given to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Mawlana Abdul Tawab Siddiqi this point during his debate against Mawlvi Sadiq Kohati – at 1:32:40 to 1:33:28, link available above. Next step was to reconcile the differences that emerged due to definition and al hamdu lillah it was managed – Mushayda, Itla, Amba, Akhbar, Izhar, all are sub-categories of Atahi  Ilm e Ghayb. Next step was to understand in which meaning the verses of Quran deny the knowledge of Ghayb for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and in which meaning the affirm for him. Another problem was that I took the verses which affirm knowledge of Ghayb for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to mean affirmation of Allah’s (subahanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge of Ghayb and rejection of Ilm Al Ghayb for everyone. After reading book of Sayyidi Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) – Jaa Al Haq I found his reconciliation to be acceptable. He stated verses in which Ilm Al Ghayb is negated for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) negate Zaati (i.e. personal), Qulli (i.e. total) Ghayb and not granted, and limited knowledge of Ghayb. I also noted that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) affirmed Ghayb for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and instructed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to negate his own Ghayb in Quran. I gathered when a person of knowledge negates his knowledge it is to be humble. If an Aalim states he is servant of the people and he has no greater knowledge then any member of audience gathered to listen to his lecture. Then everyone will understand this statement of an Aalim’s to be act of his humility. Similarly, I understood; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is instructed to be humble about his knowledge of Ghayb, in verses which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is instructed to negate his own knowledge of Ghayb. By the time I had reached to this stage of knowledge my relative had also taken positive steps by moving toward position of Ahle Sunnat on all issues. Looking back at the whole debate/discussion between me and him it I would say he was prolly not serious in Deobandism but got embroiled in it because originally he only intended to wind me up with arguments but as responses were given he had to formulate counter response to keep the joke going. And eventually all this pretence of being true Deobandi was over-written and he began to morph into actual Deobandi. I say this because he would listen with me debates on Ilm Al Ghayb and agree with position of Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad. And he stated much later that he was not actually a Deobandi but was actually winding me up. I assume some where in middle of pretence of being Deobandi and winding me up Shaytan made it an issue of prestieg for him. And to back down and come out clean that he actually never was serious was difficult for him because everyone including my self believed he was serious. So had he come out, guess what boys, I was never serious, I was only winding him up, I was always on side of Muslims, we all would have laughed at him – why don’t you admit you was wrong? Why you making lame excuses? And his prestiege would have been harmed and would have caused him embrassment.

FortyOne – The Irrefutable Argument Against Ilm Ghayb:

Anyway, he came up with a single point which I had already known but had no idea how to refute it. After I had presented evidence that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had seen hell and paradise. He said, what is seen and heard is not Ghayb therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not have knowledge of Ghayb. I had no response to this point and it was used against me mercilessly for weeks, and this point basicly brought me to my knees. I knew the understanding which I have Quran and Ahadith is valid but could not refute this argument against my belief. My only response to this point was, I believe in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in his Book; His Messenger is not miserly over Ghayb (81:24), implications of which is that Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) grants Ghayb freely and to grant to another one must possess it for himself, and I believe in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated in Surah Jinn that He grants knowledge of Ghayb to his chosen Messenger (72:26/27). Therefore I surrender my intellect, common-sense, and believe in his knowledge of Ghayb. I have to say this argument against Ilm Al Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was the biggest test of faith in book Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I had to totally give-up rationalism, common-sense, intelligence, logical implications, and strictly hold to book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). All this while I am constantly being challenged to produce evidence against the argument or accept what the argument establishes. This also came with being mocked and was laughed at. This was the hardest thing to bare, having to hold to teaching of Quran and Ahadith, yet being unable to respond to a potent argument. Until one day a new member of staff joined his name was Riaz. I mentioned it to him because he seemed to be quite knowledgeable about disputed issues, and Riaz was help of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which I needed. He said; he reffered the same point to either Allama Arshadul Qadri [author of Zalzala] or someone else and he had explained to him feebleness of argument. He explained, Deobandis and Wahhabis all believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possesses knowledge of Ghayb. They also believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is all hearing, all seeing, nothing is hidden from Him. If the principle employed by Deobandis – what ever is seen/heard is not Ghayb - is correct then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also does not possess knowledge of Ghayb. And if His all-Hearing and all-Seeing does not lead them to conclude; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not possess knowledge of Ghayb then why should it lead them to conclude Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not possess knowledge of Ghayb! This was a huge counter argument and it turned the tables againsts Deobandism. Not just that, he explained Allama Arshadul Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) had explained, why we say RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses knowledge of Ghayb despite seeing and hearing the events which we term as Ghayb. He explained, what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has seen – hell and paradise – is Ghayb for us. Hence we say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has seen/heard incident of Ghayb [which was/is Ghayb from us]. He further added; for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to have the knowledge, via seeing/hearing, then he has to either hear or see the events, if he does not hear or see, that means he has not gained knowledge. And if he hears and sees what is Ghayb to us, we say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses knowledge of Ghayb, or has seen/heard incident of Ghayb. This counter argument and explanation solidified my convictions even further. And removed my relative’s resistance from this subject.

FortyTwo – Knowledge Ghayb From First Day To Last Day:

Fundamental hurdle was, does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) have knowledge of Ghayb or not? And this hurdle was completely removed through listening to debates. The next topic which was related to Ilm Ghayb of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was, if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted; all knowledge of what has happened and that is to happen, or in other words if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihiw as’sallam) was granted the knowledge from the first day of creation to the last day, or in orther words if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of all that was written by the Pen on the Perserved Tablet. What ever different label one chooses the creed is same. Mawlana Saeed Assad’s discussion with Mawlana Yunus Nomani’s – three hour plus one – got me interested into the topic. Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad’s position was that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted all knowledge of Ghayb from the first day to the last day to Prohet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I felt Mawlana Saeed Assad’s arguments in defence of his belief were strong. Also he mentioned Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyah Fi Maddadil Ghaybiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Al Brailwi and naturally I had to read it. First time I had read Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah, I found is difficult to understand because the vocab was difficult to understand, so I invested in Urdu dictionary, Feroz Ul Lughat, current version I have is 2008 one, earlier I gifted to a friend. With aid of dictionary I understood much of his book and I was amazed at the strenth of actual position. This called for another round of listening to Mawlana Saeed Assad VS Yunus Nomani – discussion. This time around a lot more things made sense from Mawlana Saeed Assad side, so I read ad-Dawlatul Makkiyah for the second time, and again took the liberty to enjoy the exchange between two Scholars for whom I had great respect for. I concluded the position of Muslim scholars was much stronger and based on such a solid basis that denial/rejection of it is just ego worship. Here are two very important Ahadith which removed all doubts and possible objections from me: “… 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: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] "[...] 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: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] One Hadith states, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) came to know everything in on earth and universe and the other states that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) came to know everything. Demonstration of Prohet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowing everything is in the following Hadith – in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the companions about what would transpire from first day of creation to the last day of creation: “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] Hadith of Bukhari is in fact explanation of Hadith Tirmadhi. When Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) placed his ‘Palm’ between the shoulders of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), then he become aware of everything that was to happen from beginning of creation till – people entering hell and paradise. All the evidence of Quran discussed in Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah, and the manner Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad explained his position, and the evidence of Hadith all came togather to convince me correctness of Islamic position, and I did not hesitate to adopt it. Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah was the very first book of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, Al Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) which I had the pleasure of reading and it was followed up by Hassam Ul Haramayn. Edited 8 مئی 2016 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

FortyThree – Fundamental Dispute On Hadhir Nazir :

Me and my relative would spar on subject of Hadhir Nazir and Ilm Al Ghayb interchangeably. Depending on  where he was caught out, he changed to subject to the other, and when he got caught on his second subject he moved back to the first. It was strategy which worked for him, because by the time we returned to the first topic, the point where he was caught earlier, had moved on to something else. This way he never got cornered nor he was refuted into silence. I had realised his strategy but allowed him to do this but for sake of dealing with all of his objections. Therefore even though I have written the subject of Hadhir Nazir and Ilm Al Ghayb, one after another, in historical context, both were being discussed similtaneously. This was one main reason due to which discussions on these two topics nearly went on for a year or more. Introduction done, now to begin with, subject of Hadhir Nazir. It wrongly defined to me by my Deobandi mentors and when it was correctly defined by Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad in his speech,

. When I judged the matter in light of his definition it was totally different from what I had been told. His this speech was followed by Allama Abdul Tawab Siddiqi’s speech on Hadhir Nazir, found on NooreMadinah, here. Lastly I am pretty sure; I read Jaa Al Haq’s chapters related to Hadhir Nazir. During my Deobandi days, my first objection was, there is not a single verse which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Hadhir Nazir. It was pointed, you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Hadhir Nazir, but is there any explicit mention of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being Hadhir Nazir? I knew the answer that there wasn’t yet I believed in it despite the absence of explicit evidence. So I learnt that either I needed to give up the methodology of - explicit words – or let go of my beliefe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Hadhir Nazir. Ofcourse I couldn’t let go of the belief because indeed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has a presence, and He is Hearing (i.e. sami) and Seeing (i.e. baseer), and therefore the beliefs which are part of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being Hadhir Nazir are definitely correct. Also Mawlana Saeed Assad had pointed out that Istilah (i.e. termonology) is irrelevent and shouldn’t be made part of dispute, as long as the creed which the terminiology intends to indicate, is established from Quran and Hadith. Also the evidence employed by scholars of Islam revealed that they believe word Shahid means Hadhir Nazir. When I checked the usage of word Shahid/Shaheed in Quran, I found that it was translated in various verses to mean Hadhir (i.e. present) by Deobandi and Wahhabi translators. Also the usage of Shahidina in funeral prayer has been translated to mean ‘our present’ and it logically means sense because the diametric opposite of it was Ghahibina (i.e. our absent). Also even if all this is ingored and the word Shahid/Shaheed is translated to mean ‘witness’ even this corresponds to meaning of Hadhir Nazir because a witness must be present [at a place nd alive to be witness] and able to hear/see the events one is to bear witness about, otherwise he is not a witness. Even if we discard all evidence on meaning of Shahid being Hadhir and Nadhir we are still left with words Shahid/Shaheed. Supposing the impossible, Islamic scholarship has completely misunderstood meaning and implications of Shahid – Hadhir Nazir, we dismiss everything. Then question remains, is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. witness)? To be more precise hearing/seeing type of witness? Or is he ‘witness’ a type who is not really a witness in sense of hearing/seeing – but a ‘witness’ who has not seen/heard anything yet has been declared a witness? My belief originally was, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. witness) in meaning of, not hearing seeing type of witness. Then it occurred to me, Qadiyanis who believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Khatim Un Nabiyeen but do not believe the meaning obvious from it  - i.e. end of Prophets, I declare them to be distorters of Quran and Kafir. Yet when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated we have sent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as a Shahid and Shaheed, and I reject the natural meaning of  [hearing and seeing type of] wintess and therefore I too distort the Quran, hence guilty of Kufr. So I came to realise fundamentally the verse does mean, present, hearing and seeing type of witness, and to deny this meaning I am guilty of Kufr, which invalidates my Islam. Note, denial of Shahid and Shaheed meaning hearing, seeing, present, amounts to believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not exist because what ever exists must be Hadhir at a place. Hence denial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Hadhir amounts rejection of his existance with Jism (i.e. body). Rejection of Nazir amounts to believing in a deaf and blind Prophet. Hence when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, we have sent Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as a witness in the following verse all three meanings in most basic form – like we all are Hadhir Nazir in our surroundings, must be accepted to be a Muslim: “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a Shahid (i.e. witness) and a bringer of good tidings and a warner.” [Ref: 33:45] This is the minimum requirement; to believe he was Hadhir Nazir, Shahid, witness, in a restricted sense, in which all mankind is. In other words it is fundamental that we believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was present in a place, and believe he saw/heard events that took place around him – like we all see/hear events taking placing around us. This is the very minimum which the verse establishes and to reject this basic meaning of verse is Kufr, and one who dies upo negation of the minimum which this verse establishes has died upon an innovation, and if person was informed of his distortion and he refused to mend his way then he has died as a disbeliever.

FortyFour - Hadhir Nazir In Meaning Of Witnessing Deeds Of Mankind:

Once I understood, that fundamental meaning of Shahid/Shaheed is present, hearing and seeing. Next step was to understand how the scholars of Islam reached to the understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witnessing – hearing and seeing , directly and without any middle. Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) has stated that he has sent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) as a Shahid: “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a Shahid (i.e. witness) and a bringer of good tidings and a warner.” [Ref: 33:45] And he has been sent as a Shahid, bringer of good news, and as a warner to entire mankind: “Say, "O people, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He …” [Ref: 7:158] And another verse states he has been sent to all of mankind as a witness like of which was sent to Pharaoh: “Indeed, We have sent to you a Messenger as a witness upon you just as We sent to Pharaoh a messenger.” [Ref: 73:15] Meaning of which is that he has been sent as a present, hearing, seeing type of witness the deeds of entire mankind. Note verse 73:15 specifies, that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a witness like Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) was sent to Pharaoh. If he was not a Prophet who is Hadhir Nazir amongst all mankind then how can he be like Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) who went to Pharaoh. To be like Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) he must see/hear as Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) saw/heard Pharaoh. The difference in their seeing/hearing being, that Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) heard/saw Pharaoh, while Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to entire mankind: “Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you as a Messenger to mankind, and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness.” [Ref: 4:79] “O mankind! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof  [the Prophet Muhammad] from your Lord; and We sent down to you a manifest light.”[Ref: 4:174] “Say: "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah - to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. None has the right to be worshipped except He. It is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, …” [Ref: 7:158] Hence his witnessing - seeing/hearing, is of entire mankind. After properly understanding the Islamic position in light of Quran and according to principles of Tafsir I had no choice but to accept it.

FortyFive – Hadhir Nazir Objections And Matters Of Principle:

What about the other objections which I had before learnt the actual creed of Hadhir Nazir? Well they kind of fizzled away after I listened to the speech of Mawlana Saeed Ahmad Assad, including - to believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Hadhir Nazir is Shirk. If belief of Hadhir Nazir was according to definition of Muslims then it wouldn’t have fizzled away.[56] What about the other arguments which I had piled up against Hadhir Nazir, some of which I have mentioned in section TwentySeven? Well, suppose certain Nanotavi believes, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) doesn’t have knowledge of Ghayb. Or believes, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) doesn’t always know everything, sometime He doesn’t know. To support his belief he presents evidence; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asked Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) what he was carying, had He known he would not have asked. He continues, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed Prophet Adam and Hadhrat Havwa (alayhis salaam) to not to eat the from a tree. Now if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) most definitely knew they would eat from the tree, then why would he instruct them to not to eat from the tree? It only makes sense that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) doesn’t know what will happen therefore He instructed and found out after the event has transpired. Therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t know the Ghayb related to future He only knows what transpires at present. Expressing the same differently, I most definitely know, with zero percent of doubt, this man will attempt to burn himself with this fire if hes given chance. Do I hand over the fire to him and say becareful with it, don’t burn your self with it, okay mate I leave you to it? Will Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowingly leave his creation at the mercy of Iblees knowing that one day Iblees will manage to entice them to act against His command? No, never, just as we wouldn’t knowingly hand over fire to someone who will end burning themselves Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not knowingly leave the tree nor command them to eat from it knowing it would have them removed from paradise. Hence Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) commanded them to not to eat from the tree because He had not foreseen the event of Hadhrat Hawwa eating from the tree.[57] Lets return to suppose, suppose someone believes this and attempts to argue Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not have fore knowledge of events and only becomes aware after they have transpired or as they transpire – will you actually believe him? Will you ignore the explicit evidence which establishes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows all that is Ghayb of past, present, and future, just because a senseless person has managed to assemble few IF arguments to refute what is clearly established? When a verse, or verses of Quran, come togather to established an aspect without contradicting another verse, then no IF or BUT argument, or arguments are strong enough to refute what has been clearly established. Rather all evidence against the explicit is always harmonised to the fundamental belief. We believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is nothing like His creation. So what do we do, we negate the literal fo Yadh (i.e. hand) and pass it on as it came to us (i.e. as Yadh), or a group of righteous makes Taweel of Zahir (i.e. apparent) – meaning makes Taweel of Hand in such a fashion that it negates literal meaning – dast e qudrat (i.e. hand of power). So principle amongst Muslims scholars always has been to reconcile a verse which goes against the emphatic verses of Quran. After knowing my arguments against Hadhir Nazir are all IF type of arguments and therefore they cannot refute what is part of fundamental text. So I believed in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being witness upon mankind without going into logical/rational questioning – how is it possible, when it became possible, is human capable of this, how can a single person view so much? I believed, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and asked no questions. Once I submitted to what the textual evidence established, I understood that I had to find plausible explanations for my objections in light of creed which was taught by Muslim scholars. Al hamdu lillah, after my conversion to orthordox Islam I spent at least a year and half investigating all objections relating to subject of Hadhir Nazir along side other studies. With grace of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I managed to resolve all my objections according to my stafisfaction, and even if they had not been resolved it would have not made me any less believer in Hadhir Nazir then I was, because I came to realise – a belief clearly established from text of Quran/Hadith cannot be refuted with IF arguments because the fundamental of text of Quran supercedes any implied arguments. Anyway, all these major points left no room for me to deny creed of Hadhir Nazir nor for my relative. The only point of contention remained was Takfir of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Whom I considered to be disbeliever for insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and whom he considered a Muslim. We sparred on this topic until his dream. He dreamt a Pir/Shaykh was benefiting people with good (i.e. logoon ko faiz dey rahay thay) – Shaykh hugged each person, and something transferred from his heart to heart of his disciple (i.e. mureed), until the Shaykh reached him, and my relative said to him, grant me faiz also, Shaykh refused, and demanded from him; first you believe Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is Kafir only then I will grant you faiz. My relative narrated that he said to the Shaykh first you give me faiz and then I will say it. Shaykh replied no, first you confess to it. My relative does as the Shaykh demanded, and Shaykh hugs him in the dream, and he says he felt something transfer from heart of Shaykh into his heart. He said the feeling of something entering his heart was real enough and during his sleep he was rationalising, if I have confessed to it here, then what the hack, I just might confess to it when I wake up. Al hamdu lillah, he woke up and decision was already made, all he had to do was openly declare it. And he did this in spectacular style.

FortySix – Denouncing Of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi: 

I was late at work, the boss and some of the staff had already opened the TakeAway. I walked in and asked him, tell me why Thanvi isn’t Kafir? You have to realise, this was our routine daily, when ever the work was quite, we would start debate/discussion on something. Night before we finished on debating if he was Kafir or not and discussed the evidences against his Takfir and for his Takfir. Feeling of day before was that I am ahead/winning, so had to make most of it while I was ahead, so to press the advantage home, I fired: O! Dasso nah, Thanvi keeyan neenh Kafir? I didn’t know the dream part yet, so I was expecting regular head banging and arguing with him. He turned around with his cup of tea and looked at me dead seriously and directed few abusive words toward Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, which I am not going to narrate. I was taken aback by this so decided to leave it until later. Later during the same night around 9:30 PM I approached him again and this time asked him in serious tone what happened to him. You been signing praises of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi for past two years and now you saying this. He then told me the dream and his decision to renounce his earlier position on Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. This was welcomed and I thanked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for allowing me to undo all the damage done to Eman of Muslims. Amongst us there was only one Deobandi left. He was a Deobandi, born into Deobandi family, we relentlessly explained to him the issues of Islam – at the end of night he would agree to all that was said to him after much argument but sunset of the next day he would be on his default Deobandi position and his went on for at least two years. Nothing ever changed in him, we failed to even make a dent in him. He didn’t believe in any knowledge of Ghayb and he didn’t believe any when he left the job. We couldn’t even make him believe that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has some knowledge of Ghayb, not even a spec worth of Ghayb. It was as if, he went home, took his brain out, plugged it to computer and wiped it clean, every night after agreeing to everything. Call it his loyalty, or his lack of intelligence, he won and we lost. It was a proof of, one whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guides none can misguide and one whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) misguide none can guide. This ends the TakeAway episode of discussions.

FortySeven – I Did Not Realise The Plan Of Allah:

Like I said earlier, I had no intention of becoming orthodox Muslim. My objective was to defend the position that Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi was guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he refused to repent, therefore he was a Kafir. I did not intend to learn Islamic understanding of Hadhir Nazir, or Ilm Al Ghayb to become a orthordox Muslim. I intended to learn it so I can point out the mistakes in their creed. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had other plans for me and He is the best of planners. Without realising how the plan was going to unfold I studied these two major issues of creed which were disputed by Muslims and Deobandis. Some I had already studied during my Deobandism days – reality of Prophet, innovation - and accepted as valid without actually realising that modern Deobandism is against them. Instead of actually refuting the Muslim scholars I gradually began to side with them and as my knowledge increased, I openly defended positions of othordox Islam on Hadhir Nazir, Ilm Al Ghayb. After I completed my study of subject Ilm Al Ghayb and Hadhir Nazir I attested to the fact that I am Deobandi no more. To which sect did I belong? Where is the sect, which was destined to hold, to the truth of Islam continously, till judgment day is established? How do I find out which sect is rightly guided?

FortyEight – Questions Which Bathered Me And Allah Guided Me:

Months of thinking over these important questions and I finally began to compile answers to these questions. Here is story of how and on basis of what evidence I came to my understanding that only orthodox Islam is the guided and saved sect. One: Following map establishes, people of Hijaz/West (i.e. Makkah, Madinah, etc) are followers of Ahle Sunnat, commonly shortened to Sunni and people of Najd/East are Wahhabis, map. Please bare this information in mind because it is essential in establishing truth of orthodox Islam over Kufr of Wahhabism. Also note Najd in relationship to Hijaz is in the East, and Hijaz in relationship to Najd is in the West. Also note, the spread of Wahhabism in Arabian Peninsula is mainly in Najd then other regions. To begin with, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had the following to say about people of East (i.e. Najd) and people of Hijaz (i.e. West): “The callousness of heart and sternness is in the East and faith is among the people of the Hijaz.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H95] About people of Hijaz Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “The people of the West will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the Hour is established.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4722] And the following Hadith also attests to the given meaning: “A group of people from my Ummah will continue to be triumphant over the people until the Command of Allah overtakes them while they are still triumphant.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, N4716] And regarding this triumphant Ummah he said: “… ‘Indeed Allah will not gather my Ummah.’ - or he said: "[Muhammad's]Ummah upon deviation, and Allah's Hand is over the Jama'ah, and whoever deviates, he deviates to the Fire." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2167] In other words, the people of Hijaz [region inclusive of Makkah and Madinah] are people of Eman and they will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the day of judgment is established because Allah’s Yadh is over them and one who deviates from their version of Islam has followed the crooked path of fire. The map has established, that Ahle Sunnat, aka Sunni Islam, aka orthodox Islam is still dominant in region of Hijaz. This was enough for me to shudder in fear because the people of Najd (i.e. East) accused the people of West (i.e. Hijaz) of being Mushrikeen and to be precise worse then Mushrikeen of pre-Islamic era. And knowing that this bunch of desert bandits were inspired by teaching of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab – the people of Makkah, Madinah are Mushrikeen and it is permissible to kill them and enslave their women, old and young – made me all too sure that this sect is of sect of fire. In other words the Najdiyyah deviated from teaching of saved sect. And regarding the people of East (i.e. Najd) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had foretold: “The main source of disbelief is in the east.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H520] How was it that those who accuse the people of West be upon Islam when the Islam of people of Hijaz was protected by the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? How could the Takfir of people of Hijaz by minions of Iblees not return upon them? Also by extension, anyone who had belief similar to people of Hijaz is from amongst them regardless of where he lived on earth. Two: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: “Indeed the children of Isra'il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect." He said: "And which is it O Messenger of Allah?" He said: "What I am upon and my Companions." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B38, H2641] Ahadith in Sahih Muslim record that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] In other words, the reward being told is for those Sunnahs which are not part of Islam yet but will be and can be made part of Islam. Hence the saying of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in which he said: "What I am upon and my Companions." is not in meaning of acting on only the Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but also the innovative Sunnahs which the companions introduce into Islam. This understanding also applies to following two Ahadith: “You must then follow my sunnah and that of the rightly-guided caliphs. Hold to it and stick fast to it. Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error.” [Ref: Dawood, B41, H4590] “Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa', cling to it with the molars.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2676] In other words we are being instructed to following the innovative Sunnahs of companions as whole and innovative Sunnahs of rightly guided Khulafa of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Companions and rightly guided Khulafa were not on zero innovation methodology/policy. Infact they actively introduced innovative Sunnahs into Islam, 20 Taraweeh, for entire month of Ramadhan, with recitation of entire Quran, being one of it. From this I learnt the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were acting upon the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but also followed the methodology of introducing innovative Sunnahs into Islam. So I concluded, yes the Deobandis and the Wahhabis both act upon Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) just like the authodox Muslims and they - the Wahhabis perform 8/20 and Deobandis like orthodox Muslims perform 20 Taraweeh Rakah. So in this sense they are following the Sunnah of rightly guided Khalifah. But are they actually following the methodology of introducing into Islam praiseworthy Sunnahs? Answer was emphatic, no! So I concluded they are not upon the methodology of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor of his companions, nor of his rightly guided Khulafa. Hence they are not rightly guided on this issue and the only one group which is rightly guided on this aspect is of orthodox Muslims because the emulating the Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and follow the methodology methodology of introducing good Sunnahs into Islam and follow the innovative good Sunnahs of rightly guided Khulafa as well. Three: I figured Wahhabism was not the rightly guided sect because it was group of Iblees/Satan, due to the Ahadith of Najd being from where group of Satan is to emerge from. And any sect with trade mark beliefs of this sect is indeed not upon guidance. Trade mark of Wahhabism is, declaring Muslims as Mushriks, just like the Khawarij declared companions as Mushrik. The Khawarij considered it permissible to kill those whom they declared to be Mushrikeen and to loot the property and enslave their women, so do the Wahhabis, and so they did. Rebellion against established authority for one reason or another was also the trade mark of Khawarij and it was and is trade mark of Wahhabis. I realised the Deobandis even though they are less direct are guilty of same Mushrik making which the Wahhabis of Najd were and also have a rebellious strand – which is supported by mainstream Deobandism, though through silence and financial support of these rebels. Ismail Dehalvi, in his Taqwiyatul Iman, indicated the methodology of Deobandism. If one was to judge Islam and Muslim-ness of Muslims according to Taqwiyat ul Iman there would hardly be any Muslim left, only Deobandis and Wahhabis would qualify to be Muslim. Let me translate this into numbers, around 1.2/1.4 billion Muslim out of 1.7 billion would be Mushrik. When you protest at the massive Takfir of vast majority of Muslims of Ummah then they quote: And most of them believed in Allah, but not without Shirk.” [Ref: 12:106] If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits a detailed article will be written explaining this verse but a brief explanation can be found, here. Deobandism has same, Mushrik making engine of Wahhabism, and this was definitely not sign of rightly guided sect. Only two sects known to me which did not have this, Mushrik making engine, were orthodox Muslims and Shia. Shia’ism did not make to the grade because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama’ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance.” [Ref: Musnad.I.Ahmad] Two is better then one because two is majority, three is better two because it is majority, hence prophetic instruction to stick to the group (i.e. Jama’ah) is in meaning of majority. This meaning is attested by the following Hadith: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] On basis of this the Wahhabis, Deobandis, and Shias fail, because they all will not add up to be majority and to phantom individually each of them amount to majority from amongst Muslims is lunacy. The vast majority of world Muslim population, in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and other countries is of Ahle Sunnat. Wahhabism and its off-shoot Deobandism both have just recently began to seep into these countries. Four: I realised the saved sect was to remain in Hijaz dominantly following to the truth until day of judgment and to my surprise region of Hijaz was and is still dominated by orthodox Muslims and the only people who attacked their belief declaring it Shirk/Kufr was Najdiyyah hence they were people of fire. Based on all evidence, orthodox Islam was ahead in my estimation by miles to be the winner of title, the Saved Sect.It laid emphasis on following the Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), in theory allowed introduction of good Sunnahs into Islam, it introduced good Sunnahs into Islam, it followed all the goods Sunnahs which the companions and rightly guided companions introduced, it did not declare the Muslims to be polytheists, it did not legalise killing of Muslims like Khawarij and Wahhabis did and continue to do, it did not and does not support rebellion against established authority, nor riots and excellent demonstration of it is in Pakistan, and finally it is the majority group – judge it based on numbers of followers, or judge it based on number of scholars, in both cases it is majority group. Also orthodox Islam’s understanding on subject of Ilm Al Ghayb and Hadhir Nazir further convinced me to join orthordox Islam. Five: I noted that Deobandi and Wahhabism is spreading amongst Muslim communities due to their missionary activities and their adherents always break away from orthodoxy. This was indication that these sects were not orthodox Islam but were outsiders creeping in orthodox Muslim communities and creating small Deobandi/Wahhabi communities amongst larger orthodox Muslim population. Also, prior to formation of their sects, there was/is not a single community to which the a Wahhabi/Deobandi point to, and say this community had all beliefs same as our sect, and this community was successor of earlier generation. Rather origins of these two sects can be pretty accurately dated, and evolution, and crystalisation of their sectrian outlook can be pin pointed. Neither of these two sects can demonstrate a chain of their belief systems. This is important because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had foretold there will always be at least a group who will hold the light of Islam. Following Ahadith are evidence of this: “This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is established.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4717]“A group of people from the Muslims will remain on the Right Path and continue until the Day of Judgment to triumph over those who oppose them.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4720] “Allah has protected you from three things: that your Prophet should not invoke a curse on you and should all perish, that those who follow what is false should not prevail over those who follow the truth, and that you should not all agree in an error.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B35, H4240] For the religion to continue to exist there has to be a group of people from the Muslims who are upon the right path till the day of judgment. In other words for Wahhabism to establish their claim of truthfulness they must demonstrate their belief system has a chain of transmission from one generation to another. For example, Wahhabism must establish a chain of their belief system, from Sahabah, to Tabieen, to Taba’Tabieen, and every succeeding generation uptil Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhabs time. And this belief system was the great majority. In sha Allah, they have never managed and and they will never manage it. They themselves have stated true Islam had ceased to exist for 300/400 years and it was revived by founder of their sect. They believe, from companions to Ibn Taymiyyah and for a little after him, the true Islam existed, and then it vanished for 300/400 years, until Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab reintroduced it. This means, that people of falsehood prevailed over the people of guidance and true Islam. Also their saying, is a admission that they do not have a sound chain of transmission – which is connects one generation with succeeding generation. Yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had stated their will continously exist true religion of Islam, and a group of rightly guided people till the day of judgment, and the people of falsehood will not prevail over the rightly guided group. So I had to find out, did the scholarship of Islam ever state the majority of Muslims can be Mushrik prior to blowing of musky wind, did they ever state the inhabitants of Makkah, Madinah and Hijaz as whole will be over taken by Shirk, or Muslim ‘Mushrikeen’, or did they say true Islam will disappear and appear at times, or something similar? Answer to all of these was and is, no! On other hand, I found ample of evidence which established that orthodox Islam had always existed – in belief and in methodology, and the teaching of orthodox Islam which Wahhabism had denounced as major Shirk were approved and practiced by great majority of Muslims throughout the world, throughout centuries, and only this belief system has a chain of transmission linking one generation with another, and which at the very minimum can be traced to earlier Muslims, if not Taba’tabieen, Tabieen, Sahabah. I also concluded; there must be a sect which continously held to teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and to his methodology, and to innovative Sunnahs of his companions and successors, and held to principle of introducing good innovative Sunnahs into Islam, prophetic times to present, and will continue to hold to till day of judgment, and this criteria is only met by Ahle Sunnat, the great majority of Muslims. I also noted, this belief system has a continous chain of transmission all the way back to companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And on the basis of Wahhabis and Deobandis disagreeing with orthodox Muslims on these issues, I concluded these two sects could not be rightly guided. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Ref: Muslims, B20, H4559] Not only the Wahhabis/Deobandis have deviated from the Jammah, they deviated so far from the Jammah of Muslims, until they found sword and waged a relentless war against Muslims. They left the Sawad Al Azam (i.e. great majority), the Jammah, the people of West, the people of Hijaz, and charged its members of committing major Shirk, labelled them as people of innovation and desire, declared them to be people of hell fire for introducing/following innovative Sunnahs and major Shirk. Despite the fact that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had informed: the great majority is the Jammah, and Jammah is better then minority, and the people of Hijaz/West are to remain dominant/victorious against their enemies, there was to be no Shirk in Ummah Muslimah, there was to be no idol worship in Arabian Peninsula by Muslims [only after the death of Muslims], introducing good innovative Sunnahs earn reward for one who innovates them into Islam and those who follow them. So I concluded, that not only both these sects lack evidence of continuity in belief and principle methodology. Hence they cannot be part of the Jammah, or the Jammah, because both have same beliefs about the great majority of Muslims and their scholars, and both prohibit introducing good innovative Sunnahs into Islam.

FortyNine – Conversion Of Orthodox Islam:

My joining to orthodox Islam coincided with my joining Orkut and there my academic approach to matters of Islam got lost. Major cause of this was my depression which was result of marriage and divorce among others constantly being worried over the life of hereafter, uncertainties, worries, and fear of embrassing myself on judgment day and the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) whom I loved so much. Everything was black or white, Kufr or Islam, either Muslim or Kafir, with me or against me. There were no shades in between and my associations fuelled my sectarianism. What followed for a period of half a year was destructive form of discussions, debates, heavey on denouncing by associations and labels, nothing on academicly. It would be safe to say, I lost my plot for little while. I began to gain composure and gather myself after realising I am suffering from depression. But the damage to personality had been done, depression changed my social habbits as well as, out look on life. I preffered to be alone then in company of people. This resulted in bit of suffering but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had planned greater good for me. Due to depression and change of personality I lost the company of friends and abstained from other social events, preferring to be alone. As a result I had plenty of time available to investigate matters of religion in depth and in detail. Hence I decided; to study the principle methodology of Ahle Sunnat to understand the entire Manhaj of Ahle Sunnat. After studying it, I gradually began to pen all that was learnt during my studies and it has continued since.

Fifty – Learning Tawheed And Shirk According To Orthodoxy:

I had to focuse on the subjects of Tawheed and Shirk from perspective of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat. As a Wahhabi/Deobandi I was already well aware of their understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. But I had little to no understanding of how Ahle Sunnat classify each subject. I cannot recall exactly who or what my source of knowledge on these two topics was. I became aware that orthodox Muslims divide Tawheed and Shirk into, of Essence (i.e. Zaat), of Attributes (i.e. Attributes), and of Actions (i.e. Afaal). And believe, Essence, all Attributes, and all Actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are, Zaati, Qulli, Haqiqi, Bi-Ghayr Izni, and Qadeemi etc. And believe essence, all attributes, and all actions of creation are, Atahi, Baaz, Majazi, Bi-Izni, and Hadis etc. And for major Shirk to be warranted one has to attribute a partner in Essence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – mother, father, son, daughter, wife, sister. This partner may be believed to be equal of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His Essence, Attributes and Actions. Or can be believed to be less capable then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as well as being dependent upon Him but despite this major Shirk will be warranted. If a creation is not considered to be – mother, father, son, daughter, wife, sister – of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but a creation is euqalled to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His Essence, or Attributes, or Actions, according to meaning of - Zaati, Qulli, Haqiqi, Bi-Ghayr Izni, and Qadeemi – then major Shirk would be warranted. Once I fully grasped what this understanding of Tawheed and Shirk entails I began to study matters which the leader of Khawarij Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab judged according to his definition of Shirk and principles. The out come of this study was that according to methodology of orthodox Islam the actions cannot be major Shirk. At worst case scenario these can be termed [reprehensible] innovations but definitely not Shirk. This ofcourse agreed with my research – according to which the Muslims of Arabian Peninsula could not have fallen into Shirk and people of Hijaz were monotheists. Now when the principle methodology of Ahle Sunnat supported my findings I had concluded; correct out come – people of Arabian Peninsula were not polytheists - is due to correct and valid teaching of Tawheed and Shirk, and principles of orthodox Islam. Had these principles and teachings of Tawheed and Shirk been invalid then the out come would have contradicted what was taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I had already discarded the Wahhabi methodology of determining major Shirk because it was foolishness of worse type. Ask the living for help – its Tawheed. Ask the dead for help – its Shirk. Ask for what Amr has ability/right to grant – its Tawheed. Ask for what Amr does not have ability to grant – its Shirk. Ask for something small from creation – its Tawheed. Ask for something great from creation - its Shirk. After studying Tawheed and Shirk, and principle methodology of orthodox Islam I closed the gate on Wahhabi methodology. Orthodox Islamic methodology was, if Zayd believes Amr is Ilah (i.e. has to right to be worshipped) besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)  – it is major Shirk. Even if he asks from Amr who is alive, which Amr has ability/right to grant, and asks for something small as a penny or spec of dust – if Zayd affirms Illahiyyah for Amr then he is Mushrik, and his asking Amr for penny/dust will be counted as invocation, and therefore it will be an act of worship, which is also Shirk. Also note, according to orthodox Islam, once Illahiyyah is affirmed for a creation, even if one did not invoke the elevated Ilah or worship it, even then he will be Mushrik because one has believed another beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ilah. So I understood, Tawheed and Shirk are not dependent upon, living or dead, small or great, having ability/right to grant, or not having ability/right to grant. Rather Tawheed and Shirk are determined by affirmation of Illahiyyah. This realisation of Tawheed was final blow to any doubts which I had regarding my understanding that Ummah Muslimah will not fall into worship. This principle methodology of Ahle Sunnat basicly validated all that I had understood and came to believe due to what Ahadith revealed. All while my Wahhabi principle methodology was pointing to all Arabs and Muslim Ummah as whole being upon major Shirk but I supressed my Wahhabi methodology and believed what the Ahadith established. And now the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was supported by principle methodology of orthodox Islam and I praised Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for guidance and accepted the teaching of orthodox Islam.

FiftyOne - Completing Research On Topic Of Innovation:

I re-adjusted my known defintion of innovation, with explicit evidence I added, implicit evidence, which I have also labelled Ijtihadi evidence because Ijtihad requires indirect/implicit evidence. Later I studied, Sayyidi Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi’s, definition of innovation. I felt it lacked guidance on how a innovation is to be determined therefore I altered and incorporated improved Wahhabi definition of innovation into Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan’s (rahmatullah alayhi ta’ala) definition. With this new defintion, I began to understand the current issues of Fiqh which are disputed between Muslims and, Deobandis and Wahhabis. Also realised how an innovation can be made part of Islam without the innovation harming perfection of Islam. First of all, I realised through study; teaching of introducing innovative Sunnahs into Islam is part of Islam because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) permitted this when he told about reward for introducing innovative Sunnahs. In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) left a window open for innovative Sunnahs to be made part of Islam. Hence anything introduced/entered into Islam through this window does not negate the perfection/completion of Islam. Next hurdle to contend was - does the innovative Sunnah introduced into Islam become part of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teaching, if it does then it negates completion of Islam? Obvious answer was, no. To attribute a innovative Sunnah to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is falsely attributing/inventing Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and this takes one to hell fire. Then how was that innovative Sunnah part of Islam? In the very same way a convention, a lecture becomes Islamic, or Sahih Bukhari, Tafasir, are said to be Islamic, and in the same way Islamic schools, are attributed to Islam. These are based on teaching of Islam, teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or discuss, or explain, teaching of Islam hence they are termed Islamic. In other words innovative Sunnahs are said to be part of Islam because they are composed and based on teaching of Islam. These innovative Sunnahs are not part of fundamental Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) brought and taught. These innovative Sunnahs are not the stem, or the branches, or the leaves of Islamic tree, these innovative Sunnahs are the fruits which grow on that tree. It can be said fruits are part of the tree but fruits are not the tree. In other words, the innovative Sunnahs are part of Islam but are not the Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) brought and taught. When tree of Islam bares fruit it is recognised as a fruit and not considered the tree of Islam. With Allah’s help and guidance I unravelled all difficulties obstructing the straight path of Islam. And tiny doubts which would surface ocasionally were forever silenced in this regard.

FiftyTwo– Mawlid And Other Isaal As-Sawab Practices:

After completing studies and research on topic of innovation. I investigated various practices which the Ahle Sunnat especially of subcontinent engage in – Mawlid, Geeyarweenh, Khatams, Urs, Salawat before Azan, supplication after the funeral prayer, and other practices. Prior to my investigation into Mawlid my understanding of it was; it is deemed as an act of worship, it is celebrated on 12^th of Rabi ul Awal, and it is considered part of religion by the orthodox Muslims – hence I judged it as an innovation. When I studied the position of orthodox scholarship on Mawlid. I learnt that they do not consider Mawlid as an act of worship rather they celebrate/commemorate the birth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to praise and thank Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and to make it means of education. Secondly, Mawlid is indeed commemorated/celebrated in some places on the 12^th of Rabi Ul Awal but this is not the condition of commemorating/celebrating. Rather the orthodox Muslims celebrate/commemorate it on various dates depending on feasibility and even if it was celeberated on 12^th of Rabi ul Awal there is no harm in it because Islam judges permissibility/prohibition on content not on dates. And note there is not a single Ayat or Hadith in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited engaging in actions on a fixed date. Hence using fixing of time, date, day as criteria of determining [reprehensible] innovation itself is an [reprehensible] innovation. My last objection to it on which I deemed it as an [reprehensible] innovation was that it is considered part of religion of Islam. This I had already understood that how innovative Sunnahs are become part of religion of Islam. I reconciled it, Mawlid is same way part of religion of Islam as is thirty day Taraweeh prayer, under leadership of an Imam, who recites entire Quran. Also I implied permissibiltiy from the Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is said to have fasted on every Monday because it was this day he was born. The mentioned Hadith points to two aspects, Sunnah of commorating birthday, and method of commemorating birthday. I deem the idea of commemorating of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) birthday as a Sunnah. And consider the way it is commemorated – apart from fasting on Monday – consider all others as praiseworthy innovations and hence permissible and rewardworthy. Coming to Geeyarweenh, I had already known what this practice is composed of because I was born into family who engaged in it and for years I personally engaged in it. Hence I knew Geeyarweenh is nothing more then combination of acts of worship such as supplication, recitation of Quran and poems in praise of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), distribution of food at the end. Hence by the contents it has nothing Haram in it and it was not as whole considered act of worship, nor considered part of fundamental Islam, hence it was not an [reprehensible] innovation. Now the Khatams, Khatams basicly are food is prepared, Quran is recited which is an act of worship. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is invoked and praised, and all the reward of worship and which will be earned by feeding of poor, or family members, is gifted to the deceased, with emphasis in supplication on pleading to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for forgiveness of decased. As it can be seen Khatams are not composed of anything reprehensible or forbidden in Islam. Yet my concern was, it is permissible to gift reward, is the idea of gifting the reward an innovation? So the Khatam by their nature were not prolematic but the idea of gifting the reward of acts of worship the deceased was considered innovation by me. I read the Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sacrifised sheep as an act of sending the reward to all members of his Ummah. This was inclusive of the deceased, living, and the ones to be born yet and this evidence was the clincher/winner for me.

FiftyThree – Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Was The Imam Of Islam:

Even though I had adopted and chosen to follow the orthodox Islamic teachings I was still deeply hostile to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, Al Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). I came to love Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, Imam Ahmad Raza because I realised what he strived for against Deobandis and Wahhabis. As I studied his Hussam Ul Haramayn, and investigated his stances, and attempted to refute or corroborate his and traditional Barelwi understandings, on issues relating disrespectful statements of Deobandi/Wahhabi Maulvis, Kufria innovations, I began to see the Imam in him, the Mujadid, and the Mujtahid in Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Ahmad Raza Khan. When I studied the grounds of his objections against Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi, Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulvi Khalil Ambethvi, Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, and Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, found his Hussam Al Haramayn vindicated of all blame. And the following discourse is my research which made me appreciate his scholarship and what mainly changed my perception of him. Also impact of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat poetical praises (i.e. Naats) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) opened my heart, purified my heart removed darkness, filled it with Noor, and instilled the love which I had been lost. By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat is the Imam of those who love RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Those who hate him and revile him, and insult and disrespect him, by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are nothing less then innovators, and dogs of hell fire. Note, I will no longer present material in form of story. It would be better that I present my research in my usual manner. This basicly means, I am not going to cite where I got the material from - from which book or Aalim, or from speech or debate. Instead attempt to write academicly so if material is distributed it can be copy and pasted.

FiftyFour - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi On Distractions In Prayers:

Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi whom the Wahhabis of subcontinent and Deobandis consider as their major scholar. Even Hanbali Wahhabi publishers in Riyadh published his Taqwiyat Ul Iman in English and on basis of this I assume they are appreciate his views. Ismail Dehalvi wrote a book, Sirat e Mustaqeem and in it while discussing polluting thoughts which effect purity of Salah Ismail Dehalvi wrote; if thought of engaging an illegal sexual intercourse (i.e. Zina) during Salah enters into ones [heart/mind] it would be better to think of having sexual intercourse with his own wife. He continued - [During Salah] to direct effort [in imagination] toward Shaykh, or Saliheen like him, even if it is honourable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey, here: "Rather then to think of adultery it is better to think of having ###### with your own wife, and Shaykh or pious elders like them to concentrate on them or even on Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in prayers is worse then being drowned in thoughts of your bull or donkey." [Ref: Sirat e Mustaqeem, page 129 Urdu & Ref: Farsi - Page 86, Urdu - Page] He also justified his this statement saying; thoughts of respectables during Salah attach to ones heart and takes one toward Shirk – because respect of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah is Shirk. Where as the thoughts of bull/donkey do not cling to heart. And thoughts of ghayr (i.e. others) in prayers with respect take one toward Shirk. He went on to recommend the ‘cure’ of having such Waswas (i.e. Urdu; waswasa). He states, in Zuhr prayers if one had the waswasa of Hadhoor (i.e.Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in all Rakats, then he should perform sixteen Rakat to as an act of atonement. And he states, if ‘waswasa’ of [Hadhoor sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam] was in only few Rakats then he should atone for it by performing four Rakat. His emphasis is that in atonement Rakats one should completely free himself from the ‘waswasa’ of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Earlier I stated I did not defend these statements of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. The reason was, I personally had bone to pick with what he wrote. Even though I did not initially agree with orthodox Muslims; this statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is disrespectful and insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but I felt this statement did not correctly represent Islamic teaching. Part One: Firstly, it is/was understandable for him to encourage people to focus and direct your attention toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in prayers. But instructing the Muslims away from thoughts of illegal intercourse, and then directing them to mind ###### with ones own wife was/is not correct, nor it was, or is better, both are against the teaching of Islam. He instructed the Muslims to direct the attention away from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and directed them to think of their bull/donkey. Was this the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it was not! Did he say when you think of committing greater sin in Salah then think of lesser one? Or did he say when you are about to commit major sin instead commit a minor sin? I had to be fair to my self and soul and say the truth, not by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Did not Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teach us method of purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he did indeed! Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has taught that when performing Salah imagine you can see Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and if you cannot do this then imagine he can see you. Knowing that you are in presence of your Lord, your Creator, and knowing that he can observe you, will bring the humility, and sincerity, and purity in Salah. Minds/Hearts of men are so easily influenced by Iblees, he wispers into hearts/minds of men distractions. What can be greater distraction from purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then to get entangled in web of - think of lesser evil when Iblees wispers into your heart/mind a greater evil. More you try to think of lesser sins to get away from greater sins in your Salah the more you have entangled your self. Thinking of Zina, think of ###### with wife, oops! But thinking of having ###### with wife in Salah is not good so think of lesser one. Each time you think of lesser one, you will aim for another the lesser one, and your lessers will not finish but your Salah will. You have destroyed your Salah following the suggestion of Iblees. Instead of purifying your Salah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you have spent the entire time chasing the lesser evil then the one Iblees has planted in your mind/heart. And I remembered the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) whosoever introduces into matter of religion which is not part of it is to be rejected [or will have it rejected]. I considered Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s advice/teaching to be [reprehensible] innovation and something which takes to hell fire. Part Two: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated to atone for a Rakat in which ‘waswasa’ of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) one has to peform four Rakat. And if one has waswasa of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in entire Zuhr prayer he is to perform sixteen Rakat to atone for this offense. I found this also unacceptable because there was no precident in teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) where he himself or instructed his companions performed four Rakat to atone for lapse in a single Rakat. We only find that he performed Sajdah of Sahw (i.e. prostration of forgetfulness) if he made mistake and instructed his companions the very same. This teaching of performing four Rakat for each Rakat as an atonement is an innovation into religion of Islam which has no foundation it Islam. Part Three: It was these two reasons on basis of which I did not defend the Sirat e Mustaqeem statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. But I have to point out that I did not consider him to be a Mubtadi (i.e. Innovator) rather excused his innovations under the pretext that he made a Ijtihadi mistake and he will be rewarded and excused. Part Four: Coming to issue of orthodox Muslims objecting on the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated instead of engaging in thoughts of Zina [while performing Salah] one should think of sexual intercourse with his wife. And in the following sentenceMaulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated during Salah to direct focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in images/thoughts of your bull and donkey. If Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi was following the principle, instead of greater sin engage in lesser sin, then he considered directing focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a greater sin then focusing toward bull/donkey. If Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi was upon the principle, instead of sinful thoughts direct focus toward blameless thoughts, then he considered directing focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sinful and deemed engaging in mind ###### with wife and thinking of your bull/donkey as blameless. In first case, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of stating thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse sin then sin of thinking about bull/donkey. In the second case, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of stating; thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is sinful but thinking of donkey/bull, or ###### with wife isn’t. Part Five: I read many Taweels, and many excuses presented in defence of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi, but I did not accept any of them. Firstly, I was aware of Hadith of Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) in which she acted angrily when a Sahabi mentioned that if a dog, donkey, and a woman passes infront of person performing prayers, then prayer is invalidated. She said angrily, you have compared us (i.e. women) to dogs and donkeys, here. The Sahabi did not compare the women to dogs/donkeys he only stated they and women invalidate prayers if they pass infront of one who is performing prayers. Yet she took offence because being mentioned with the dogs, donkeys was offensive in her judgment. I thought and asked myself, how would she react to statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi? Would she say it is all Halal and pure Tawheed or order the murder of one who wrote this? Another incident in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was distributing gold alloy to leaders of Najd. Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi shouted: Be just O Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) sought permission to kill him for insinuating that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not distribute gold alloy justly, here. In the other Hadith Khalid bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) also sought permission to kill him, here. Considering the delicate and fine nature of respect, and love companions had for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) I concluded if any of them ever heard these words uttered which Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi had written they surely would kill him for insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as stated: “And when it is said to them [the Munafiqeen]: Believe as the people [of firm faith, companions] believe. They say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.” [Ref: 2:13] Based on instructions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I came to believe what the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have come to believe. Meaning I believed, the statement fo Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is indeed insulting and insulting/disrespectful enough to warrant his murder – warranted on basis of his Kufr and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Part Six: Later on I did dwelve into polemical side of the debate to further my knowledge on the topic. I want to adress something important which the Deobandis argue in defence of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. They say he said, apni himmat ko laga dena behal ya gadday ki soorat mein mustaghrik honay say bura heh.[58] He did not say, apnay khiyal (i.e. thought) ko laga dena behal ya gadday ki soorat mein mustaghrik honay say bura heh, therefore your saying, that he said, thought of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey, is misrepresentation and distortion of what he actually wrote. Muslims respond to Deobandis, sarf (i.e. exherting) of  himmat (i.e. effort), or one exherting own himmat (i.e. effort), will be in imagination hence it is part of thoughts. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is talking about mental exhertion and it is composed of nothing but thoughts. While explaning his position why one should not direct effort Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi explains, Shaykh’s thoughts attach themselves to ones heart due to respect and greatness [of Shaykh]. Therefore even Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has confirmed correlation between, [Urdu;] himmat lagana, or [Farsi;] sarf e himmat to thought and thinking – all of which are mental activities. In other words, one will exhert mentaly to avoid thinking about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and will have to exhert mentaly to think of his bull/donkey. Which ever direction one chooses to direct his focus all will be a thought process, a process of khiyal. Hence to argue that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi did not state, khiyal (i.e. thought) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then of donkey/bull in Salah, is based on ignorance of how a normal human being with sound mind will exhert mental effort – in thoughts. He did mean, in khiyal exherting effort to think of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then imersing in images of your own donkey/bull. Even though simple form of Ismail Dehalvis intended meaning is conveyed but even if the full details are disclosed even then insult/disrespect of the statement is not removed. And to sample the reality of this please refer to Farsi or Urdu version of Sirat e Mustaqeem. Part Seven: Lastly, during the last days of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was leading the prayers and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) entered from his room into Masjid Nabvi. And after persistently being alarmed by companions, he retreated back until he was being lead by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he was leading the rest of companions. When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) entered the entire focus of congregation was toward informing Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu)  of presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In another Hadith it is stated that companions used to look at the face of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in third/fourth Rakat  to see if he is reciting something. One companion was asked how do you know that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recited a supplication in third/fourth Rakat. The companion replied looked from corner of my eye and I saw his beard move. Did they not think; we must perserve Tawheed, directing our attention toward presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take us toward Shirk? Or did they think or say, to concentrate toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse then immersing yourself in images of your donkey or bull? They knew during Salah we the companions with utmost love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam),  and with our hearts and minds filled with love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), we invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salwat: O Allah send blessings upon Muhammad and on the Aal (i.e. family and followers) of Muhammad. How could they utter or even contemplate such Kufr which Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote? How could the thought of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not come with love and respect? And thoughts of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will enter our hearts and minds while reciting Salawat then should we think of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with hate and disrespect? Or should we direct attention toward our bull/donkey? What about Tashahud – Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and His mercy and His blessings? Should we not focus toward our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when we are adressing him? Lunatics, have you lost your sense? We adress Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with love and respect, and we think of him with love and with respect, and then we adress him with: Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and His mercy, and His blessings. You be to your sexual fantasies and imersing in thoughts of donkeys/bulls in Salah and me to Islam. Part Eight: There was no need for Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi to state tawajah toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then thinking of your bull/donkey. He could have easily expressed that according to his form of Wahhabism, respect of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah takes one toward Shirk hence effort should be made to not to focus attention toward any creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with love, or respect. The Farsi/Urdu languages are very well developed and could have allowed him to express his position without comparative terms if he chose to do so. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi said, when Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi presented Taqwiyatul Iman to his co-religionists he stated that, he has used harsh [and I M.Ali.R say, disrespectful] language but people will fight over it and sort themselves out, here. This indicates that Mualvi Ismail Dehalvi was aware; his style of writing is offensive and disrespectful but hoped after strife everything will settle. From this I gather Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi deliberately used deragotry language saying , tawajah toward righteous Muslims as well as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was stated to be worse then imersing your self in thoughts of your bull and donkey. Note Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s comparative style, due to y the x is worse then z, is constant in both books. He was aware of harsh/disprespectful language and also was aware of the strife he would cause by adopting such style of writing but did not rectify it nor there is authenticated report of his repentence. As a result of his Taqwiyatul Iman and Sirat e Mustaqeem there was uproar amongst the Muslims of subcontinent and this strife resulted in formation of two distinct groups, Muslims who opposed Ismail Dehalvi and Muslims who supported and deffended his writtings and continue to do so. The first became known as Ahle Sunnat [in other words orthodox Muslims] and the second became known as Deobandi and Ahle Hadith [a non-conformist Wahhabi sect]. And the fight/strife between these factions has only got worse as time has progressed.

FiftyFive - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – More Disgraced And Less Then:

Part One: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “And know/believe [with firm] conviction every creation may he be great (i.e. bara) or lowly (i.e. chota) compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiayatul Iman, page 35, Urdu] To begin with I had questioned: Where is the proof that – every creation is more disgraced then cobbler? Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say this or did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teach this? There is no proof for this teaching of Ismail Dehalvi. In fact it is a disrespectful innovation. Part Two: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote, har makhlooq (i.e. every creation), this is inclusive of all creation, including Prophets, companions, and righteous of Ummah. So according to him all Prophets and their followers are more disgraced then a cham’mar (i.e. cobbler). Note how Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has constructed the sentence. According to construction of sentence, compared to majestay and honour of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the cobbler has some worth, but the Prophets, including our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions are worthless. The construction of the sentence by Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is similar to following: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is worse in his Kufr then Firawn. Implications of both statements is; (i) chammar is better in position of honour, (ii) and Firawn is lesser in Kufr, then the mentioned in both sentences. Part three: As mentioned in the sentence Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated ‘every creation’ and therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and his companions are said to be more disgraced then a cobbler. In this context I asked three questions: (i) Is Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) more zaleel (i.e. disgraced) then a cobbler? (ii) Is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)) zaleel compared to Allah? (iii) Is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) more zaleel then cobbler compared to Allah and is the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi valid? Has I understood and understand – the answers to first two questions are fundamental to answer the last question in affirmation. If these two questions are answered with affirmation then the answer for the last question is naturally, yes! Meaning; if he was more disgraced then cobbler, and disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then naturally for the third/finale question would be: Yes he is more disgraced then a cobbler compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! No sane Muslims would ever affirm Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is more disgraced then a cobbler. Suppose if someone negates the first question, affirms the second question, then he would believe: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This also is rejection of Ismail Dehalvis statement. Now coming to what person would believe – how does he know Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), did he read it in Quran, or Ahadith, or did he invent it? Answer, it is neither in Quran nor in books of Ahadith, it is an innovation, and Kufria innovation. Alhasil, there are two fundamental components [both indicated in first two questions] in Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s sentence and both have to be true for the statement of Ismail Dehalvi to be valid. This disproves the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi but also establishes Rather that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was said to be more disgraced then a cobbler as well as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – because fundamental contruction of sentence was based on two points: (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was more disgraced then cobbler, (ii) and he is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is due to this that I believe Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of tripple Kufr in one statement alone.  Part Four: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (al azza) will expel therefrom the meaner (a'zilla)." But izza (honour) belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.” [Ref: 63:8] If one compares the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) toAllah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), he is with Izza (i.e. honour, dignity). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shahid and so is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Shahid. To say compared to Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) station of Shahid Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no station of Shahid – it would be Kufr because a station of Shahid has been affirmed in textually of Quran. Point is, Allah and his beloved Prophet both can be Shahid and have Izzat (i.e. honour) – how ever limited the Shahid/Izza of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) maybe compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Our love and respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) should not exceed the limits of Tawheed – meaning we should not elevate him to status of an Ilah and we should not worship him because such honour and such respect only belongs to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). So even in comparative terms between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), the Izza of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot and should not be denied because it has been textually confirmed. Or to say, compared to seeing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is blind. This is going against what is established, one can say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in comparision to the Khaliq (i.e. Creator) has limited and restricted sight but cannot say, he is blind without warranting Kufr. One can say, in comparision to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the honour/dignity of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has limited/resctricted Izza [due to prohibition of elevating him to status of an Ilah] but cannot completely deny it or say he is Zaleel, without warranting Kufr. Unlimited/Unrestricted Izza is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because all honour is of Him and only He has the right/honour to be worshipped with ultimate acts of honour/respect – worship. Part Five: Supporters of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi argue that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi did not mean every creation inclusive of Prophets and their righteous followers. So I would like to present a part of what Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “Every person may he be great (i.e. bara) or lowly (i.e. chota), may he be Prophet (i.e. Nabi) or a saint (i.e.Wali) …” [Taqwiyatul Iman, Maktaba Khalil, Page 75] Note here Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi used words ‘bara’ (i.e. great) and ‘chota’ (i.e. lowly), and right after it used word Nabi and Wali. This indicates great person in his terminology is Prophet and lowly is a Wali. Islamicly speaking the Prophets are superior to Awliyah and Awliyah are lower in rank then Prophets. Therefore Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi counted Prophets amongst great (i.e. baray) in rank and righteous believers are lower in rank therefore they are stated to be lowly (i.e. chotay). In light of this Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi specificly targetted Prophets and Awliyah when he said compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are more disgraced then a cobbler. In another part of his book he actually defines who is included in ‘bara’ (i.e. great) and ‘chota’ (i.e. lowly). He states: “Meaning, all humans are brothers of each other. One who is bara buzurq (i.e. great personality) that one is older/great brother. Therefore respect him like an older brother. And Malik of all is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), worship is due to him. From this Hadith we learn that, Awliyah (i.e. saints), Ambiyah (i.e. Prophets), Imams and sons of Imams, and spiritual guides (i.e. Peer) and matyrs (i.e. Shaheed). Meaning all people beloved/near to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are human, and humble humans, and our brothers, but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted them bara’ee (i.e. greatness), therefore they are our baray (i.e. elder/great) brothers. We have been instructed to obey their instructions. We are their chotay (i.e. younger/minor) therefore they should be respected like human beings.” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Page 80] This establishes absolutely clearly that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi considered the Prophets and righteous of Ummah amongst the baray. Once he explicitly stated who the baray and chotay are according to him and then hinted at what he has stated by using words bara/baray and chota/chotay. He used these words as indicators so readers of his book can relate to his position of who baray/chotay are when they study the content of his book. Alhasil he considered the Prophets and righeous followers of the Prophets, including Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions, as more disgraced then a cobbler. Part Six: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated, honour (i.e. Izza) is for Allah and for the Messenger and righteous believers, here: “They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (al azza) will expel therefrom the meaner (a'zilla)." But izza (honour) belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.” [Ref: 63:8] Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) included Himself, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and righteous believers amongst the people of honour/dignity. The hypocrites have not been mentioned and this exclusion indicates they are disgraced (i.e. Zaleel). And therefore to say every creation is Zaleel - which is inclusive of all Prophets, righteous followers of Prophets – means one is indicrectly labelling them has hypocrites, and it is Kufr. Part Seven: In religion of Islam honour/dignity is connected with piety. So one maybe a chammar (i.e. cobbler) by profession but if he adhere to pillars of Islam and acts on good and abstains from prohibitions then such a cobbler is from righteous believers and honourable.  Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has statement indicates he considers all cobblers as disgraced. Part Eight: Also note the basic structure of the following statement Ismail Dehalvi is same as the one discussed in this section: "Allah's exalted glory is such that all Prophets and friend of Allah infront of Him are less then speck of nothingness." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 74, urdu] And I leave it to readers to understand his statement.

FiftySix - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – Will Die And Decay Into  Dust:

Part One: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi quoted Hadith from Mishqat in which a Sahabi seeks permission to prostrate to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) questioned the companions will you prostrate to my grave when you pass by it? The companion responds he will not prostrate to his grave and Prophet said then don’t prostrate to me now. On this Hadith Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi deduces; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is actually saying: "Meaning, I will one day die and then decay and will be part of dust." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] During my Deobandi days I had summed this as an error of Ijtihad. After properly studying the temperament of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – he was a michief maker and disrespectful (i.e. Gustakh) individual. Especially when he himself is reported to have said, I have used harsh language at times but after strife people will sort themselves out, here. Now I am of opinion this had nothing to do with Ijtihad, or mistake but this was deliberate attempt to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by putting words into mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for sake of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tazleel (i.e. humiliation). Even the children who have never attended a Madrassa know that Prophets are alive in their graves and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has forbidden the earth to decompose their bodies. My understanding is that this knowledge is and was elementary, and Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi deliberately chose to write this to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note he wrote; Prophet said, ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In Urdu words, khaq mein milna, mitti mein mil jana, mitti mein milna, are always used in meaning of, destroying something in such a fashion that it leaves no distinguishable sign between soil and the item destroyed. And such destruction with the usage of word mitti mein milna is always associated with negative conotations of dishonour, disgrace, and humiliation. If someone said, ham nay ussay itna mara kay ussay mitti mein mala deeya, it would mean we beat him so much that we made him worthless [like dust]. Or, utterly humiliated him with excessive beatings. In every such usage, meaning of humiliation and disgrace is part of it. Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi was also familiar with how typically this word was used. Despite this he attributed the words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In other words Ismail Dehalvi wrote that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about himself; I will one day die become dust. Neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said this nor has a companion uttered such blasphemous words. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has honoured Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with life in his grave a more real life then earthly life, bestowed upon him the life of paradise. Part Two: Note, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi attributed these words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and these words were his understanding and belief. Otherwise there was no reason for him to deduce/attribute if he did not believe the following for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): "Meaning, I will one day die and then decay and will be part of dust." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] O Muslims! I ask you: Will you anounce, or believe, due to your love/respect for your mother, or father, or daughter, or sister, or brother, or son, that she/he has died, and the body has decomposed, and has turned dust? Will your heart allow you to utter it? How could a Muslim/Momin utter and believe that the body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has turned to dust [due to decomposition]? When I realised the implications of what Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi had written, and realised what he believed, and what he is promoting by writing this book, I was stunned. I recited Shahadah again and again affirming my faith in Islam until I felt I am a Muslim. I repented and sought forgiveness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for saying good and praising Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. Part Three: Muslim scholars have routinely criticised Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi for his lack of good manners when adressing Prophets, and righteous scholars of Ummah. And the insults of Taqwiyatul Iman directed to Prophets and righteous men of Ummah are obvious to anyone with mustard worth of Iman in their heart. Due to the obvious disrespectful and insulting nature of Ismail Dehalvi’s statements in Taqwiyatul Iman his modern supporters have begun altering statements of Taqwiyatul Iman. And the statement in being objected in discussion is one of such statements which have been altered to conform to accepted belief and to remove disrespectful wording of sentence attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Proof of this can be found, here. Darul Kutub publishers altered the statement to: “Meaning, at least one day I will too die and get into lap of grave to sleep.” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Page 78, Urdu] This is proof of disrespectful nature of the statement. Had the statement been innocent and blameless there was no need for it to be altered. Part Four: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said that anyone who attributes to him deliberately something which he has not said such a person can occupy his place in hell, here. Anyone who attributes something which he has not stated is in hell fire. Where would he be who attributes to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a statement in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is saying something which is belittling him? Such a person is in the deepest part of hell among the munafiqeen who have disbelieved in Islam after believing in it.

FiftySeven - Finale Word On Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi And His Kufria Statements:

My position on Kufria statements of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is that who ascribes for himself label of: Deobandi, or Shia, or Wahhabi, or Ahle Hadith, or Barelwi, or Sufi, or Aalim, or Allamah, or Shaykh, or Mufti, or Muslim, or Sunni, – whatever label one desires for himself, or is attributed to him – if he/she is intelligent [and not a minor, or intoxicated, or mentally handicaped] and is fully aware of insulting statements found in Sirat e Mustaqeem, and Taqwiyatul Iman. And chooses to defend these insults hurled against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even after proof contradicting his/her position has been given to him from linguistic analysis and disrespect is established for him/her, and proof of insult of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being major Kufr has been presented to him, and yet he/she chooses to defend these Kufria statements then such a person is Murtad and Kafir, even if he/she makes Taweel of statements with good intentions. And anyone who doubts the Kufr of such person is himself Kafir. My this position is consisten to all Kufria statements be they of, Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, Maulvi Khalil Ambethvi, Maulvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi. Anyone who is not aware of these Kufria statements and does not defend them then such a person has no blame upon him/her - in connection with these Kufria statements - irrespective of what ever label they use, or sectarian persuation they are of. After studying the entire details of controversial disrespectful statements found in Sirat e Mustaqeem and Taqwiyatul Iman, all the Husn e Zan which I had for Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has seeped out of me. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of major Kufr and considering the confirmed, and established reports of – proofs of him being wrong were established to him, and he was requested to repent, and due to absence of varifiable confirmed and authenticated report of his repentance, I judged he was/is Murtad (i.e. apostate), and has died a Kafir.

FiftyEight - Maulana Qasim Nanotavi – Issues Relating To Khatamiyyah:

Coming to controversial statements of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi in his Tahzir Un Naas. Like all typical Deobandis my arguments were: (i) Ala Hadhrat distorted the actual statements in such a fashion that he through his distortion made the statements appear to be Kufria and therefore duped the Arab scholar into attesting his Hussam Al Hamayn. (ii) Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat completely negated every Fadheelat (i.e. merit) by removing bil Zaat giving it impression that Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi believes there is no Fadheelat in Khatamiyyah. But in fact bil zaat fadheelat was negated not bil ardh fadheelat. (iii) Ala Hadhrat omitted the context of three statements to hide the actual meaning of statements so his Takfir could be justified. (iv) Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat changed created a uniform statement from various statements of Tahzir Un Naas to imply it is a single statement. Part One: All these and a lot more were derived from Faisla Kun Munazra of Maulvi Manzoor Ahmad Nomani. Maulvi Hassan Nananotavi was part of a debate: Imtina o Imqan e Nazeer (i.e. possibility of likness) possiable or not? In this debate he and his side used the Athar Ibn Abbas to argue that likeness of Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possiable and one exactly like him can is possible. On which the Ulamah of Khairabad, Badayoon, Breilly, Rampur, Lakhnow, Bombay, Dehli, issued the fatwah of kuffr. This created the need for debate between Maulvi Abdul Qadir Badiyoon (Sunni) V.S. Maulvi Amir Ahmed Sohwani. Maulvi Amir Ahmed Sohwani and Maulvi Hassan Nanotavi had same aqeedah. Maulvi Hassan Nanotavi believed in six khatam un Nabiyeen on six other planets, but believed that khatam of six planets are different and our Prophet is superior then all of them [Ref: Tadhir Un Naas, Page 1]. Maulvi Hassan Nanotavi wrote to Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi for clarification [for details see Tadhir Un Naas] after receiving answer in which Qasim nanotavi supported Hassan Nanotavi, he published it 1290 hijri/1873 [Ref: Tahzir Un Naas Ek Tehqeeqi Mutalia, Page 11] as Tadhir Un Naas, after which the Ulamah made Takfir of Qasim Nanotavi for denying khatamiat as well. And Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi was not happy about publishing of the material which we now know has Tadhir Un Naas. The root cause of this FITNA of 'Imtina o Imqaan e Nazir' was Taqwi'atul Iman written by Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi some 30 years before the need to debate this subject came up. He wrote: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) could create millions of Muhammeds if He willed. And to sum it up from point view of Ahle Sunnat this point explains well the understanding of Ahle Sunnat on Imtina o Imkaan e Nazir: RasoolAllah is Khatam Un Nabiyeen [Last, Finale of Prphets] if Allah could create another six Prophet Muhammed then our Prophet Muhammed (subhanahu wa ta’ala)  wasnt Khatam un Nabiyeen. All this happened some thirty years before Sayyidi wa Sanadi Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (alayhi rehma) issued the fatwah of Kuffr on Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi. At that time Hassam Ul Haramain was no where to be seen, and the Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat charged Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi denying khatamiat  due to the statements of tahzir un naas. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat is only person who took this issue forward to Ulamah of Haramain and got their fatwahs some 30 years after Qasim nanotavi was originaly declared kaffir. Hassam Ul Haramain played no part in demonising Qasim Nantoavi or Tadhir Un Naas, the Ulamah who of Hind who spoke Urdu good enough had already declared him Kaffir without having any one being influenced in any way by the statements written in Hassam UL Haramian. These scholars already were fully familiar with the contents of Tahzir Un naas, and fully knew urdu read Tahzir Un naas some thirty years before Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat and declared him kaffir, sayyidi Ala Hadhrat only internationalised the issue by taking it to Ulmah of haramain. And this is even confirmed by your own Khalid Mehmood in his Mutalia e Barelwiat. Ibtaal Aghlaat e Qasimiyah (1300 Hijri) say 9 saal pehlay Tanbeeh Ul Juhaal Rad e Tadhir Un Naas was written by Maulvi Hafiz Baksh in 1291 Hijri. And Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi tallah) declared him kaffir some thirty years after the original ikhtilaaf, long before him scholars like Maulana Arshaad Hussain Rampuri, Maulana Fazal Rasool Badiyooni, Maulana Abdul Qadir Badiyooni, declared him kaffir. Sayyidi Ala Hazrat published his Hussam Ul Haramain 1324 (34 years after Tahzir Un Naas). During these thirty-four years Ulamah declared Qasim Nanotavi as Kafir and charged him of denying the Finality. So really Hussam Ul Haramain did not start this issue of Takfir of Qasim Nanotavi, rather the Ulamah were declaring him Kaffir before Ala Hadhrat surmised the points of Qasim Nanotavi and got fatwah from Hussam ul Haramian. And in subcontinent no one supported Qasim Nanotavi not even the Deobandis supported him, they didnt even deffend him, only one Deobandi maulvi supportd him. Every one in subcontinent was declaring him Kaffir, Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat just slapped on few more fatwahs of kuffr from Arab Ulamah. So those who say Arab schoalrs were decieved should take heed from the fact that 34 years before Hussam Ul Haramain Ulamah charged Qasim Nanotavi of denying finality, and opposing Ijmah e Ummat, and denying the meaning of khatam un nabiyeen as last finale of prophets. And these Ulamah read Urdu, understood Urdu, and spoke Urdu, wrote Urdu, and they had read Tahzir Un Naas long before Hussam Ul Haramains surmised aqeedah of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi and then presented to Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat in Hijaaz. The Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat of subcontinent opposed Qasim Nanotavis statements soon after it was published. So the accusation that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat mislead the Ulamah and thats why Ulamah of Haramain declared him Kaffir. And had the original been presented they wouldnt have declared him kaffir is baseless because Ulamah OF SUBCONTINENT were declaring him KAFFIR 34 YEARS BEFORE HUSSAM UL HARAMAIN on account of original Tadhir Un Naas. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat only surmised the creed of Qasim Nanotavi and presnted that to Ulamah of Arab world on which he was already being declared kaffir for past 34 years. Part Two: In fact Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi had completely negated every Fadheelat. He wrote: “… awaam kay khiyal mein RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ka Khatm hona ba-hee mani hey kay aap Ambiyah sabiq kay zamanay kay baad aur sab mein akhar Nabi hen magar ahle feham par roshan hoga kay taqaddum ya takhur zamani mein bil zaat kuch fazeelat nahin.” In other words the author has stated that there is absolutely no fadheelat for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in coming earlier period or later era. If Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi had intended fadheelat bil ardh as Maulvi Manzoor Nomani claims then the statement in discussion should have read: “… taqaddum ya takhur zamani mein bil zaat kuch fazeelat nahin.” Meaning the word ‘kuch’ would not have been inserted in the sentence. Its presence in original indicates complete/absolute denial of Fadheelat and its absence could have allowed for the mafoom mukhalif which Maulvi Manzoor Nomani attempted to justify in his, book Faisla Kun Munazra. In Urdu when it is said: ‘Yar tumein kuch aqal nahin.’ It means: ‘My friend, you have no intelligence whatsoever.’ Or when it is used in: ‘Mein toh aaj khanay kay leyeh kuch be saath nahin laya.’ Meaning: ‘I have brought nothing with myself to eat, today!’ Its usage is to negate completely and Mauvli Qasim Nanotavi used it to negate every type of fadheelat, including fahdeelat bil ardh. This establishes that bil Zaat was not used as an opposite of bil Ardh. Nor Qasim Nanotavi believed in fadheelat bil ardh. My investigation has revealed that even if the word bil Zaat was omitted it would make no difference to meaning of statement: “… takhur zamani mein bil Zaat kuch fadheelat nahin.” Compare with: “… takhur zamani mein kuch fadheelat nahin.” Both statements mean exactly the same because the usage of ‘kuch’ in sentence ensures every type of fadheelat is negated – bil Zaat and bil Ardh. Importantly bil Zaat has not been used as a technical jargon but in linguistic meaning – in meaning: “… takhur zamani mein bunyadi tor par kuch fadheelat nahin.” In other words the statement is: ‘… being the [Prophet] in last/final era fundamentally is without any merit.’ And I already established its usage is uncalled for and even Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi did not employ it in his letter: “Khatm Un Nabiyeen ka mana sat'ti nazr waloon kay nazdeeq toh yahi heh kay zamana e nabvi (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) guzishta ambiyah kay zamanay say aakhar ka heh aur abh kohi nabi nahin ahay ga magar aap jantay hen kay yeh ek esi baat heh ke jis mein khatm un nabiyeen (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) kee nah toh kohi tareef heh aur nah kohi burahi heh phir: '… Muhammed (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) tum meh say kissi mard kay baap nahin heh...' kay jumlay ko is mani say kia talluq ...” [Ref: Anwar Al Najoom Tarjuma Qasim Ul Uloom, page 55] Please note, the Urdu statement of Tahzir Un Naas and Anwar Al Nujoom are identical in meaning. Yet Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi has not employed bil Zaat or an equivalent word. Coming to the issue that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat presented position of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi in such a way that it completely negated every type of fadheelat has been resolved in favour of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat – just like Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi he expressed zero fadheelat. The issue of not using the Arabic word bil Zaat while translating from Urdu to Arabic also is resolved in favour of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat because the author himself did not consider it important enough to include it in his letter to Maulvi Nazir Hussain. And in fact the linguistic analysis establishes that bil Zaat was not required. If it was used to hint mafoom mukhalif [of bil Ardh] then the usage of ‘kuch’ should have been absent. Now addressing Maulvi Manzoor Nomani’s point, if Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat was guilty of rejecting fadheelat bil ardh then Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi the author is also guilty of same crime.If Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi could express his position without bil Zaat and not be guilty of distortion of his own position, then so could Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat express it without bil Zaat and remain free from blame. In fact Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat used the word ‘aslan’ and Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi also used another form of same word in his book, Munazra Ajeeba – he used asal as a replacement of bil Zaat: “... Yeh baat kohi sahib nah samjay kay jesay aqs mushaba samaj lenh gay toh karam meh kuch tajwaz nah a'a jahay ga, kissi kism kee tahreef manavi, ya lafzi nah honay pahay gee balkay manavi lafzi mutabiq joon kay toon banay rahen gay. Idhar RasoolAllah (salallahu alayhi was's alam) ka asal hona aur auroon ka aqs aur zill hona sabat ho jahay ga jis say afziliat muhammedi salalalhu alayhi was'salam) roshan ho jahay gee. [Ref: Munazra Ajeeba, by Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, Page 28] Now if statement highlighted was written in linguage of bil Zaat and bil Ardh then it would read as: ‘Idhar RasoolAllah (salallahu alayhi was's alam) ka bil Zaat [Nabuwat kay saath] hona aur auroon ka bil Ardh [Nabuwat kay saath] hona sabat ho jahay ga jis say afziliat muhammedi salalalhu alayhi was'salam) roshan ho jahay gee.” Even without the insertion of words the above quote from Munazra Ajeeba is evidently stating the same thing: “... agar khatamiat ba'mani osaaf zaati ba'wasf e nabuwat lee jeeyeh jesay is? nay arz kia heh toh phir siwahay RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) aur kissi ko afrad e maqsood bil khalq meh say mamasil nabvi (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) nahin keh saktay balkay is soorat meh fa'qat Ambiya ke afrad e kharji hi per aap kee afziliyat sabat nah hogi afrad e muqadira per be aap kee afziliyat sabat ho jahay gee …” [Ref: Tahzir Un Naas] What I have established here is that word Aslan is perfect replacement for bil Zaat. Alhasil entire case which Maulvi Manzoor Nomani erected against Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has fallen flat on his face. Part Three: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat had no need to present the context because the statements were known to scholars. The Takfir of Maulv Qasim Nanotavi was being made thirty-four years before his book, Hussam Al Haramayn. Scholars of subcontinent preceeded Ala Hadhrat in Takfir of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi and they were not dependent upon Hussam Al Haramayn. In fact when Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri fabricated Al Muhannad the Sunni scholar Qazi Fazal Ahmad Naqshbandi (rahimullah) wrote Anwar e Aftab e Sadaqat in which he explained the statements and many scholars who spokr Urdu as their mother-tongue attested to his Takfir of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi. Further more Maulana Hashmat Ali (rahimullah) wrote Al Sawarim Al Hindiya in Urdu and in which original statements of Tahzir Un Naas were quoted in Urdu and nearly three hundred scholars attested to the staements of Tahzir Un Naas being Kufr. In fact, Muftis from Darul Uloom Deobandi declared Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi as Kafir and it was after a lot of bashing that they retracted their edict of Takfir. There is no excuse, nor valid reason, for you to accuse Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat of any distortion or misinformation. Part Four: It has already been stated; Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rehma) did not quote verbatim nor translated the statements verbatim. He stated the important parts of statements in his own words. Even if the statements of Tahzir Un Naas were quoted as they are, in order of appearance, and with quotation marks to indicate three separate statements, nothing would alter the Kufr found in the statements. It is an extremely petty and ridiculous objection. Part Five: I have deliberately omitted the Kufria statements of Qasim Nanotavi in discussion because if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted then articles will be written to address all aspects of Tahzir Un Naas.

FiftyNine - Long Story Ending:

There was much more that I could have written with regards to my studies but I cannot devote more time to writing this hence it has to end here. After studying disputed affairs between Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat, Deobandism and Wahhabism I strongly felt and evidence indeed pointed to one direction; Ahle Sunnat – the orthodox Islam is the rightly guided sect due to their correct methodology, theology, and Fiqhi understandings. Therefore I have held to the teachings of orthodox Islam ever since. It was unfortunate that I binned my study note book otherwise I would have scanned provided a link for those who wanted to see my study notes. This long journey from nominally orthodox Muslim, to Wahhabism, to Deobandism, and to moderately informed orthodox Muslim taught me many valuable lessons about human nature. Apart from the obvious acquisition of knowledge. Including how hard it is to press delete, or admit fault, and not make Taweel of an error. All praises and thanks to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who guided me to religion of Islam and made clear to me what has confused many others and lead many astray.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

Footnotes:

- [1] I am unsure about studying Nawaqid Al Islam in my Wahhabism years. Maybe it was in the first quarter of 2004 that I read it. I am under the impression that my Takfir madness was inspired by Nawaqid Al Islam of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows better.

- [2] The simple Muslim only intended to say: ‘I will sacrifice a goat to gift the reward of this sacrifice to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah) if Allah granted me a son.’ A Wahhabi contested saying this cannot be the meaning. It means person sacrifices the animal mentioning the name of Seikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). I explained to him, person intends; I will sacrifice a ram reward of which is for Seikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah). The name is mentioned or thought of while vowing hence the person says, I will sacrifice in the name of Seikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah) or have sacrificed in the name of Seikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah). The actual sacrifice is performed with: ‘Bismillah, Allahu Akbar!’, but my friend did not understand. So I quoted the Hadith in which it is stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sacrificed a ram on behalf of his Ummah. I told him one of your Aalim has written this [white lie]: ‘Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sacrificed an animal in the name of his Ummah.’ So tell me what did he mean by this? Trying to damage control, he said o he meant Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sacrificed a ram for sake of his Ummah so they receive the reward of sacrifice, but he could have expressed the same meaning differently which would have been better. I asked: So he didn’t say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) committed Shirk? […] Conclusion is, the innocent words of Muslims are twisted/distorted and given a meaning which the utterer never meant in eagerness to declare, Mushrik.

- [3] If name of other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is mentioned while sacrificing an animal then meat of the slaughtered animal is Haram, providing the slaughterer says; in the name of y [then proceeds to slaughter the animal]. But if the person says; I gift the reward of this sacrifice to my parents … [then says;] ‘Bismillah, Allahu Akbar!’ [the proceeds to slaughter the animal] then sacrifice animal is Halal.

- [4] The following Hadith proves to call upon servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for help is permissible: “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way, I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697, by Imam Baihaqi] Hence saying: ‘O Ali help!’ is calling upon servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Note authenticity of Hadith is contested and there is difference of opinion regarding its authenticity. Some scholars graded it Hassan (i.e. Good) others as Dhaeef (i.e. Weak). Those who graded it Hassan acted on this Hadith. Important point is, Shirk is so fundamental and clear and distinguishable from Tawheed that one cannot expect the Imams of Hadith of not knowing Tawheed/Shirk. For the sake of argument, they made mistake in grading the Hadith and they classified it Hassan but if calling to servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was Shirk, then how could they not know they were acting on a Shirk. O I get it, they made mistake in grading the Hadith [which is a possibility – at least one of two parties got it wrong] but they also didn’t know Tawheed properly and Shirk this is they acted on the Shirk of Hadith – stupidity of worst type. Example: “Umar narrated from Abu Bakr, narrated Uthman, narrated Ali, narrated Hassan, narrated Hussain, narrated Muawiyah, narrated Yazid, narrated Sufyan at-Thawri and from him heard Abu Hanifah, Prophet said: ‘Allah has a son – who is Isa ibn Maryam.’” Will any sane intelligent human being who has read Quran once in his life even want to discuss or even want to argue about chain of narrators? No need to get entangled with Sanad because the Matan (i.e. Text) of Hadith clearly teaches Shirk. Point is if the Hadith of calling to servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) taught Shirk Imams of Hadith would have known immediately its Shirk and as such they would not have practiced it. Bottom line is asking the servants of Allah in general or specific is not Shirk.

- [5] As part of this, I was told kissing the hands/feet of scholars was Shirk, thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in prayers with respect/love leads to Shirk. When ever miracles of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were discussed we deliberately stated; he performed them bi iznillah (i.e. with permission of Allah), so people do not consider him special but think of him as I was human being and if there was any weakness in any Hadith we were told to capitalize on this and challenge the authenticity of the Hadith or at least say authenticity is disputed or it is not Sahih but Hassan – which means its not 100% valid proof that event took place but there is some probability of doubt. This worked well with Wahhabi minded people, soon as they hear Hadith is not Sahih but lesser – Hassan, it made them feel better. We were pleased with sacrificing the Fadhail (i.e. merits) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for sake of Tawheed. Anyone mentioned a merit of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) we will be the first ones to say, yeah this Hadith is not Sahih but Hassan. Our effort was to introduce element of doubt in the Hadith. Let me explain how this damaged the standing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and how it removes the love of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from the hearts of believers. Scenario, a man brings up a child, from day one, loves the child, buys toys, spends hours playing with the child,  provides best education, and the child in turn equally loves the man. The twist, on the 18^th birthday, the mother turns to the supposed father/child and tells them, he is not your father and this is not your biological child, this child is product of one night stand intercourse – here is the DNA test to prove it. The question, suppose you are that man, think about it, how would you feel toward that 18 year old child, will you continue to love and care, as you did? You might still be in good relationship with the child and support and provide but the bond between you and that 18 year old will never be the same. Point is a Muslim, who has believed this Hadith is Sahih and the merit mentioned in the Hadith is of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), once he is told this Hadith is not as he believed his feel for this merit will never be the same. And if a person is constantly exposed such criticism of Hadith which establish merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then eventually the love/respect both will be lost. It is hard to believe but this was taught in order to distance person from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so the person can cultivate Tawheed in his heart. We use to say look Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was a ordinary man like me and you and the proof of this is that he could not perform any miracles and to support this we quoted verses of Quran in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) quoted the polytheists who said; why aren’t signs given to him … If someone quoted a Hadith response was; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed the miracle through him not Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I remember one person use to frequently say, Prophet Muhammad was the vessel through which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) achieved His objective. He would then give example of a phone and say, see a person delivers the message via phone and after listening to phone message people are impressed and become Muslim, now what is the merit of phone? So he equated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being the phone via which the miracle was performed. He would say, just like there is no merit of phone due to the message there is no merit for Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed miracle through him. Every effort was made to make Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a ordinary man. If someone quoted Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said to a companion you are going to paradise. We had to do a ‘put-down’ otherwise Tawheed was in danger. We had to counter argue, Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) didn’t even himself know if he was going to paradise.  All this to ‘ensure’ Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not challenged and Muslim ‘rightly’ cultivates Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We were told people have too much love/respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even greater then for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore people commit Shirk and we should remove it and ensure love/respect of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is greater in their hearts then love/respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Unfortunately I was part of these disguised disbelievers and employed all these tactics and anyone who associates with these people can test this see how they go over the board with attempt to weaken a Hadith which establishes merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). But fabricated Ahadith which support their Wahhabi ‘Tawheed’ and ‘Shirk’ will be employed whole sale without ever questioning the Sanad of Hadith.

Edited 8 مئی 2016 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

- [6] In general all Islamic heritage was deemed as means to Shirk especially which was frequented by Muslims during Hajj season. This included the blessed resting place of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and this was for various reasons which am not going to list. We were taught there is urgency to demolish all erect graves because idolatry starts with worshiping of the graves and compulsory to demolish all graves worshipped by Muslims including grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

- [7] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has said in the Quran, those who are worshiped beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are fuel of hell-fire: “Certainly you (disbelievers) and that which you are worshipping now besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell! (Surely), you will enter it.” [Ref: 21:98] To say Ambiyah or Awliyah-Allah are idols because they are ‘worshipped’ is clear cut Kufr because one is sending them to hell-fire. And to declare them as Taghoot is Kufr upon Kufr hence those who declare the Prophets as idols or Taghoot it is permissible for a leader of Islamic country to order arrest of such individuals. With aim bringing them to justice and implementing relevant punishment for two charges, i) apostasy, ii) insulting Prophets, and there is reward in doing this.

- [8] Kitab at-Tawheed, Chapter 7, published by: Darussalam in year 1996, First Edition, page 44. It is part of Hadith narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim. Taqwiyatul Iman, Chapter One, Page 8, Published by Shama Book Agency.

- [9] If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills, servant will write about the insults, disrespects in the second part.

- [10] Equating Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to a postman or uttering words such as his role was no greater then role played by a postman when he delivers the letter. Implication of which is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no control over the content the message, nor has any input. Stating Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) played no greater role then post man in delivering the message is belittling and insulting the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Secondly there is no evidence to this belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was merely delivering the message. In fact there is ample of evidence available to substantiate that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted the authority/permission to make exceptions for people who could not meet the standarded verdict.  Also it is evident from Quran and Ahadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did a lot more then delivering the text of Quran. He explained it and demonstrated its ritual aspects with his actions. In this context equating him to a postman is denial of fundamental teachings of Islam regarding his explainations of Quran and this is nothing less then clear Kufr.

- [11] Takziratul Ikhwan, pages 599/600, publishers: Shama Book Agency.

- [12] Note Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab stated; people of Arabia worshipped, Prophets,  pious people, stones, trees. Purpose behind this was to set the stage for what he accused Muslims of doing. He believed ‘Muslims’ worship prophets, pious people, stones, trees, fairys, Jinn and this was his reason for declaring all Muslims as polytheists excluded his own followers.

- [13] People declare these groups to be terrorists but in reality they are nothing more or less then pure form of Wahhabism. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and those who succeeded him precisely did the same to Muslims of Arabian Peninsula what ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaidah, and TTP are doing to Muslims in various countries. The doctrines, the theological driving force behind these groups is Wahhabism, and the justification of acts of brutality, barbarity, inhumane murderous rampage, is from books of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. The animalistic violence is result of following footsteps of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in theory and in action. In actuality the all practicing Wahhabis and all Wahhabis who know their Wahhabism are terrorists. Wahhabism and terrorism or terrorism and Wahhabism is one and the same thing. This is a huge thing to say but if you consider the doctrines of Wahhabism, and those who follow these doctrines, and then look on earth to see the fruits of their doctrines, and actions then you will realize the following countries are being destroyed by teaching of Wahhabism and by Wahhabis: Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan Tribal regions, Mali, Nigeria and Algeria. Wahhabism in nutshell is a terrorist sect - it teaches killing of ‘Mushrikeen’ - in other words Muslims, believing they are apostates or polytheists etc. Life of Muslim is worthless and has no sanctity in their theology. To expect them, to respect disbeliever’s right to live, is to ask the impossible from them. Well you may assume or even come to judgment, Muhammed Ali Razavi has a sectarian axe to grind against Wahhabism/Wahhabis hence he is just exagerating involment of Wahhabism/Wahhabis in world terrorism. Right, so here is a rabid Wahhabi scholar and former ‘Imam’ of Masjid Haram, Adel Kalbani who has on TV confessed that Isis are indeed result of teaching of Wahhabism and are in fact Wahhabis,

. In sha Allah, if any Muslim independently investigates the beliefs of all these groups which are involved in rebellion, genocide, and dance of destruction in lands of Muslims, one will come to know the beast Wahhabism actually is. It has contributed nothing but destruction of Muslim countries. Where ever it has spread it has resulted in; rebellion, death, destruction, suicide bombings, youtube videos of; beheadings, drownings, burnings, blowing up with grenades, of Muslims, non-Muslims, and has attempted to do away with everything they could kill or destroy.

- [14] “How sad that these worshippers of Peers and idols confirm Allah as their God but continue to turn to others for their needs.” [Ref: Shari’a Or Ignorance, Rendered into English by Rafiq Abdur Rehman, page 312, published by Darul Ishat, first edition, 2002]

- [15] The Hadith used contradicts clear text of Quran. Polytheists nation of Nuh (alayhis salaam) worshipped the idols, Wadd, Suwa, Yaghuth, and Nasr before Prophet Nuh (alayhis salaam) and he was sent to prevent them from worshipping them. This proves idols were created before the flood which killed entire polytheistic Ummah of prophet Nuh (alayhis salaam). Yet if the account of Hadith is believed creation of idols (i.e. Nasr, Wadd, Suwa …) would be after the flood and eventually worship of these idols spread to various regions of Arabian Peninsula. If creation of idols was after the flood then it means, Prophet Nuh (alayhis salaam) didn’t warn his Ummah about the Shirk of mentioned idols because the polytheists who worshipped them were dead long before he could warn them. The coming of the flood was the final threat to his Ummah who had resisted all attempts to believe in Tawheed and to mend their ways of polytheism. Therefore creation of idols after the flood is clearly against the teaching of Quran. Those who got into boat were Muslims and they had no reason to create idols after the flood. So this Hadith is a impossibility and contradicts what is clearly stated in Quran. Also this Hadith even though is from Sahih of Imam Bukhari its chain of narrators has problems which weaken its reliability. I had written comprehensively on the IslamicAwakening forum on this Hadith in response to some member but since the forum is no longer active I cannot retrieve the material. When and if it ever does [which it always has come back] in sha Allah entire material will be posted here.

- [16] Book: Seerat Paak, page 12/15, by Muhammad Aslam Qasim M.A, published by Idarah Islamiyat, 190 Anar Kali, Lahore, first edition, Urdu,  printed 1402 Hijri.

- [17] This interest came to an end when I mentioned to Dr/Pir Allah Ditta of Dairyhouse Road what the objectives of Hizb ut-Tahrir were. In response to which he stated, establishment of Khilafah is noble cause, but the methodology employed by them is against Ahle Sunnat. He explained Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) established a state of Khilafat but before this he prepared the Muslims by, teaching them Wudu, prayers, what is good and bad according to Islam, halal and haram, and ensured his followers practice the religion of Islam firmly and believe in Islam so firmly that they practice its injunctions without need of supervision from a state authority. Once he achieved all this he then immigrated to Madinah whose residents accepted him as their leader. He said, contrary to the method of Sunnah, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, hardly support a beard, most of them do not even know how to perform Salah correctly, or the Faraid of Wudhu, most have no fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), how will they establish Khilafah and who amongst them is worthy of being a leader? He also pointed out that Imam Mahdi will receive pledge of alligience from the leaders who will be representing their people. Do Hizb at-Tahrir or any other sect take pledge of alligience?  Only Ahle Sunnat do this and it will be Awliyah-Allah of his time who will give pledge their alligience to him and the folwers of that Wali-Allah will follow their Shaykh and recognise his Khilafat. This made perfect sense to me and I gave up the venture of studying their material. Later when I studied the matter of Khilafat and became aware of Ahadith in which Prophet said Khilafat Rashidah will be for 30 years. I realized thirty years were completed on Khilafat of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And only other time Khilafat Rashidah will be established is at the time of Imam Mahdi. Hence all this effort is pointless, and hypotheised that his birth is very far hence there is little to no chance Hizb at-Tahrir will be in existance. More importantly Imam Mahdi will be born and he will be Khalifah at a time when Islam has declined and has retreated to Madinah – like a snake which crawls back to his hole (i.e. silently). Hence chance of Westernised HT members ever meeting him or being cause of his Khilafat are nill. More likely the descendants of these Muslims will assimilate to an extent that only color of their skins will tell that they are not natives. In behavior they will be white as white can be (note prophet said Muslims will follow the footsteps of Jews and Christians extremely) and white like descendant of black African slave. I also realised HT tought nothing good. Infact its methodology consisted of converting the people of influence to HT – such as army personel, army generals, doctors, engineers, politicians, and when enough numbers are gained in a country, or gain majority in a country, then all these people, at the call of their leader will take up arms and over throw the government. In other words their methodology was of sowing the seeds of rebellion and then actively rebelling against the state which is explicitly prohibited by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also their philosophy was in a particular country Khilafat is established the domino effect will do the rest and armies of Khilafat will annex Muslim lands and Muslims will gladly join their effort. And this was/is their naïve-ness, Muslims are different persuations – orthodox Muslim, including heretical; Shia, Wahhabi, Deobandi, secularists, and every other kind, and all will not open their arms and welcome their armies. Nor politicans who exert great amount of influence will allow such thing. Most of the Muslims in Muslim countries are foolish senseless people with no idea of what is good or bad for them. And where ever a person of influence herds them like cattle they go. And what made them think that world powers, USA, Russia, China, European states will allow this Islamic state to come into existance and then posing a millitary as well as a economical challenge? Cutting the long story short, when I acessed their methodology, objectives, I found them to be either incompatible with teaching of Islam or based on naïve-ness. Their methodology if of Khawarij, they gathered their followers, indoctrinate them with ideals of rebellion under the pretext of putting the things right, and rebelled against Hadhrat Usman (radiallah ta'ala anhu) and Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu), and Hizb at-Tahrir is basicly doing exactly the same. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) said near the end of time there will be young foolish people with foolish thoughts and ideals and they will refer to Quran and Sunnah [to support their positions] but they will practically have no faith and he went far was ordering their killing. Because they will incite rebellion, rebel against leader of time, kill Muslims and generally be the cause of destruction of Muslim lands - take Syria, Iraq as an example where 'democracy' has spread (i mean death and destruction) and now everyone freely votes for a leader (i.e. i mean begs for loaf of bread and live like stone age brutes) and everyone has equal rights and affluent living (i mean, no rights what so ever, human or animal and they all pretty much live in tents). Hence to allow them to live, breed and preach their destructive ideology is not permissible according to prophetic teaching, and only way to rehebilitate Khawarij is to revoke their right to live. Coming back to the Hadith - the vast majority of members of HT are young, inexperienced and with little to no knowledge of Quran or Sunnah. Their sources of evidence are Quran and Hadith, they speeches like Wahhabis are beautiful, there is hardly a practicing Muslim amongst them - only few members from them actually support a minimum fist lenth beard - proving that Quran has not reached their heart nor it has impacted them if it had they would be practicing Muslims. This is enough to establish that the Hadith refers to HT and other Khawarij off-shoots.

- [18] My chosen cause was anti-Shiaism and deciminating anti-Shia material as well as creating awareness regarding their heretical and Kufri beliefs. To be able to do this I needed to gain knowledge and this is were Deobandis came into my equation. I was informed, field of anti-Shiaism is lead by Deobandis, and it would be best visit their site to gain access to their anti-Shia material. As part of following this advice I joined Jhangvi MSN community and from there I was directed to Deobandi website kr.hcy.com.

- [19] The problem was not with Takfir but Takfir of entirity of Shia population of world. Which included educated, uneducated, Ulamah and laymen.

- [20] Modern city of Raqqah in Syria is situated at the location of battle between Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and army of Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anh). This is where the Khawarij emerged as a sect who had left the Jammah of Sahabah.

- [21] “Conditions Of Najd: “In those days, the people (i.e. Muslims) of Najd were badly indulged in polytheistic deeds and un-Islamic practices. They were completely overwhelmed with polytheism. The graves, trees, stones, caves, evil spirits and insane persons were regarded as deities. The baseless stories and tales were ascribed to them to manifest their excellence. The worldly Ulama too had misguided them for the fulfillment of their materialistic lust. The soothsayers and magicians were having their influence over the society. None could dare challenge their holds on the commoners. Same condition was prevailing in both Makkah and Al-Madinah also. Yemen was also in the same line. Polytheism, erection of  structures on the graves, seeking refuge and assistance of the dead, saints and jinns were the common religious features.” [Kitab at-Tawheed, Page 10] Note he accuses Muslims of Najd, Makkah, Madinah, and Yemen as people who were engaged and overwhelmed by polytheism and he accused Muslims of taking deities beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “I heard Allah's Apostle as saying: Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship (him) in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them.” [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] In the language of Quran, phrase, Satan worship is synonym of idol worship. In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has foretold that worshippers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), the Muslims, would not worship idols in Arabian Peninsula again. Yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has belied his claim that Muslims of Arabian Peninsula were over whelmed by polytheism and were guilty of taking deities beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

- [22] Impact of Da 'wah: “As a result of the continued Da'wah, vigorous struggle and Jihad in the way of Allah for a long period of about fifty years from 1158 H to 1206 H. A complete victory over the entire Najd was gained. People abandoned worshipping graves, tombs, shrines, trees etc. and all the more they deserted all of them and practiced the pure faith of Islam. Blind following of the forefathers, ancestors and traditions in vogue was abandoned; and Shari 'ah was revived and established. Obligatory duties were being observed in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah. A framework for enjoining good deeds and forbidding bad … “ Note, the writer as stated that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab engaged in ‘Jihad’ [against Muslims whom he deemed to be worse polytheists then polytheists of pre-Islamic era]. This ‘Jihad’ was nothing different in spirit and practice then what you have seen from ISIS/Daesh in Iraq and Syria. Historians have recorded; including Muslim, Wahhabi, Christian, and Jewish, that Wahhabi armies of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab massacred entire populations of towns of Muslims and engaged in wholesale rape of Muslim women, victims numbered hundered of thousands. In brutality, barbarity, destruction and rape, the modern manifestation of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s Ikhwan - puritanical Wahhabis - Isis/Daesh, are yet to equal their master Iblees and his minion of Najd. Also note, the author states; people of Najd stopped worshiping graves, tombs, trees, and shrines due to effort of Wahhabis. Alhasil, previous footnote [21] and this footnote [22] both establish that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was from Najd, he accused Muslims of being polytheists and taking deities beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and accused them of worshipping graves, trees, and saints, and as a result he fought and subdued them by millitary force. Hadith in previous footnote established that claim of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab that Muslims were guilty of polytheism was false and hence his agitation and murder of Muslims was unjust. After death of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab his Khariji followers continued the work of master Iblees – Takfir, murder, rape of Muslims: “… teach and educate the common people. Thus a thorough revival of the complete religion came into existence. After the expiry of Sheikh, his sons, grandsons, disciples and supporters continued the work of Da'wah and Jihad in the way of Allah. Among his sons, the most ardent in these activities were: Sheikh Imam Abdullah bin Muhammad, Sheikh Husain bin Muhammad, Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad and ...”

- [23] This principle was undone when I realised that in Tashahudd we also use the words of harf e nida and directly address Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by saying, As salamu alayka ayyu han-Nabiyu, which means; peace be upon you O Prophet. So I concluded, words of call are not Shirk if they were it would have been Shirk to give Salam to him by directly adressing him – as if he is listening to them himself. I noted, call itself cannot be worship, if it was then addressing him directly would be worship, and if that was the case then it would be Shirk, which the words of Tashahhud indicate is not Shirk.

- [24] If seeking help from x which is not in power of x was Shirk then Hadhrat Sulaiman (alayhis salaam) had sought help from members of his court. He requested the throne of queen be brought to him. Jinn who was able and it was in his power said he can do it in such a time, but one who had knowledge of book said I will do it in a blink of an eye, and so he did. Did Prophet Sulaiman (alayhis salaam) commit Shirk? Ofcourse not, was my response, but according to Wahhabism you would be very close to say yes. Next was, Okay its not Shirk, but is it Shirk to claim to do all that which is not in power of a being? Yes! Yes! Said I. Sufis are Mushrik they believe their saints have all these supernatural powers. But when I realised Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) claimed to do all that is ma fawq al asbab – such as raising of dead, breathing life into clay figurines, healed the blind and lepers – I had to scrap that bit of addition into Wahhabi principle. Only seeking ma fawq al asbab type of help is Shirk but believing such and such possesses ability over ma fawq al asbab is not Shirk. Hang on a second, Ali. What did you say? Action [of seeking ma fawq al asbab] is Shirk but the belief [so and so has ability over ma fawq al asbab] isn’t? You want me to slap you or something, Ali. You know Shirki belief leads to Shirki action. So tell me, smart one, how believing one has ability over ma fawq al asbab is not Shirk? Okay, honestly I get your drift , belief and action both are Shirk. Hey! Stupid then you are Mushrik now. To believe Hadhrat Isa (alayhis salaam) had ability over ma fawq al asbab is Shirk. Hang on a sec, well to believe otherwise is also Kufr. Heads, you’re Mushrik Ali. Your lucky day Ali, its tales. Congradulations, now you are guilty of Kufr for disbelieving in supernatural ability of Hadhrat Isa (alayhis salaam). Hey! Hey! Why am I torturing my self like this. Where is the proof for this principle of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab which has put me into this? Any proof any where? Aaah problem is that the fruits [in other words, principles] and the pudding [in other words, judgment] are rotten - rotten fruits produced rotten pudding. So when I realised the fault in the principle I dropped it.

- [25] “Samples of Contemporary Idolatry: If it is said to the people that those tombs and shrines are idols they would say, ‘you are insulting the pious!’ O my brothers, understand the Arabic language well and also the Deen and then you will find that it is not insulting the Awliyaa. For anything that is ascribed for worship other than Allaah is an idol and all who worship it are destroyed … Those shrines and tombs are idols even if they are ascribed to a pious friend of Allaah.” [Ref: Risaalat Ash-Shirk, page 268] “Exaggeration at the graves gf the righteous persons tends them to become idols [which are being] worshipped besides Allah.” [Ref: Kitab at-Tawheed, Chapter 21, page 86]

- [26] I had developed no prisoners attitude after studying Wahhabism – thanks to Qawaid Al Arba, principle three which I had evolved to – no differentiating between people when they are upon error. If I was willing to send majority of Ummah and all family members to hell for alleged polytheism in their belief and actions then what love would I have had for a man who was a evident transgressor against Sharia? I had lost my bearings of, great scholar said it therefore it is correct, treat scholars with respect, differe with honour and dignity. After all I had spent two years of my life, saying this scholar doesn’t know what he was on about, he was foolish, that one was mistaken, those ones were heretics. When scholars like of Imam Fakhr Ud-Din Al Razi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Ghazali (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Subqi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Imam Baqillani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and others like them were not spared what chance did likes of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab had for being dignified with luke warm condemnation.

- [27] I still do not have any idea what Konday is. All I understood it was a practice which involved supplicating Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on some food on 22^nd of every month of Rajab. And some Muslims of Pakistan practice it along with Shia but it was certainly unheard of part of Azad Kashmir where I was born and raised.

- [28] Fatihah is name given to supplication performed in congregation by each individual for a deceased person. Basicly it is suppication for forgiveness of deceased performed by members of community.

- [29] Reciting a Salat which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not recite, taught was deemed as innovation and here I mean any other Salat then Salat Ibrahimi – one recited in prayers. In other words only Salat to be recited was Salat Ibrahimi and all other were termed innovation.

- [30] It was much later after leaving Deobandism that I realised the evidence in support of entire Muslim Ummah as whole will be free from major Shirk according to Ahadith – in sha Allah what that evidence was will be explained in section where I had converted to orthodox Islam.

- [31] My understanding of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s position lead me to believe that position of Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah and Tafwid of Maturidiyyah is same and the only real difference is of semantics. It was later I realised ugly anthropomorphic understanding of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and the resulting idol worship.

- [32] At juncture in time I did not know that Deobandis have splintered into two factions. It was near the end of my Deobandism career when I became aware of this split because a Mamati scholar came to Western Road Deobandi Masjid. Which caused some controversy amongst the management of Masjid and they requested that they do not come back because it was Hayati controlled Masjid.

- [33] I had scanned version of this booklet. My hardrive got fried and lost all the PDF stored on it and this booklet was part of lost data. If anyone has copy of this booklet please, email me.

- [34] The title of book in English would be, Beautiful Scenary Of Victory In Bareilly, and this distortion was published 64 years afer the debate. Debate took place 1935 plus 64 and that equals 1999. Sixty-four years prior to this everyone knew that this Deobandi ‘victory’ was not really a victory but shamelessness won and in 1999 it became a victory. Also note a brief account of debate was published by Ahle Sunnat titled, Nusrat e Khuda-dad – Munazra Bareilly Ki Mufassil Rudad (i.e. God Given Victory – Short Account Of Debate In Bareilly), in same year, 1935. Prior 1999 no one from Deobandi side ever published the account of debate nor decalred it a victory. Anyway, Deobandi account of debate is edited in favour of Maulana Manzoor Nomani and material of Maulana Sardar Ahmad Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) is omitted to strenthen the position of Deobandi debater. This is obvious when one compares the quantity of material attributed to both debaters. At times the material presented in the book of Maulana Sardar Ahmad Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) is one/two paragraphs and compared to him the material of Maulana Manzoor Nomani amounts to two three pages at minimum. In actual debate Maulana Sardar Ahmad Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) crushed Maulana Manzoor Nomani like a itsy bitsy bug. As a result of this ‘victory’ of Maulana Manzoor Nomani over Ahle Sunnat, Maulana Manzoor Nomani who was resident of Bareilly, closed his Madrassa in Bareilly, stopped publishing his monthly magzine – Risala Al Furqan, and was humiliated/exposed so professionally that he packed his bags and left Bareilly for pastures where there was no one like Maulana Sardar Ahmad Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), and the icing on the cake was he never debated any Muslim Aalim thereafter despite being called out again and again. Worse is yet to come, Maulana Manzoor Nomani made excuse that he needs to perform Wudhu and he went with his collegues to perform Wudhu but instead he went home, leaving his turban, spectacles, staff, shoes, and books which he brought to for refference, and these goodies according to some are still perserved in Bareilly as trophies of true victory. When the going got tough, then the tough and ‘victorious’ Maulana Manzoor Nomani went home leaving everything behind. The great escape of Maulana Manzoor Nomani should be made into another nail biting movie. Should be advertised as, Maulana Manzoor Nomani escaped [like a theif during a debate] with only clothes on his body and left [his dignity and sense of honour with other] valuables as trophies of his ‘victory’ at the residence of his opponents. O shameless-ness, why hast thou made Deoband thy home!

- [35] Maulana Saeed Ahmad Qadri has repented from Deobandism and has become a true Muslim. His speech is available on youtube in which he explains what lead him to become a Muslim,

.

- [36] At that time I did not know, Jibraeel (alayhis salaam), who is agreed by all to be Noor. Hadith establishes angels are made from Noor and Jinn from smokless fire. He came in likeness of Bashr to Hadhrat Maryam (alayhis salaam) and evidence of this is in the following verse: “And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man.” [Ref: 19:17] . At that time I did not know, the Jinn created from smokeless fire, can become animals and human, and inhabbit another human (also known as demon possession).

- [37] The position of Ahle Sunnat was established emphatically which did not require gramatical analysis and that I will in sha Allah will mention in why I was disillusioned with Deobandism. This point was refuted from gramatical analysis much after my conversion to Maslak of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat but here I mention what did eventually refute the explanation. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “O you who believe! Answer Allâh and Messenger, when he calls you to that which will give you life, and know that Allâh comes in between a person and his heart. And verily to Him you shall (all) be gathered.” [Ref: 8:24] In this verse, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states, answer Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), but the word used is he which is singular, it should be plural they (i.e. when they call you). Also the word da’aa (i.e. call) is singular it should be plural. Question is, due to the singularity of these two words, does this prove, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are one and the same? Why should we assume such foolishness in one place and not the same in another verse of Quran? The point is the call of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is one and the same. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave Islam and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) called toward this Islam – hence a singular is used to indicate that call to Islam by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and call to Islam by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is one and the same. In similar fashion, singular yahdi bihillahu was used to indicate that guidance of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and guidance of Kitabullah is one and the same.

- [38] Years later I read Maqalat e Kazmi, by Ghazali of modern era, Allama Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in which Allama (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) explained the Ahadith and verses of Quran employed by Deobandis. Anyone interested in understanding the evidences employed by opponents of Ahle Sunnat should refer to Allama Kazmi Sahib’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) booklet – Masla Zill, found in Maqalat e Kazmi. Even though the chain of narrators in Ahadith which establish absence of shadow for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are weak but the text cannot be rejected because the Ummah as whole has accepted it – this principle is called ‘talaqqi ul ummah bil qubul’. Basis of this principle is the saying of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] Secondly it is an issue of Fadhail (i.e. merits) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and principle amongst Muhaditheen is that weak narrations are accepted for Fadhail. Lastly, we ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in our Salah while reciting Fatiha: “The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, …” [Ref: 1:7] When we know the Saliheen of Ummah have believed that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not have shadow and we aspire to follow the path of those Saliheen then why should we not believe as they believed! When we know this is the path they followed and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) bestowed upon them His favour.

- [39] Basicly Maulvi Sadiq Kohati stated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had absolutely no knowledge of Ghayb, not Zaati, not Atahi, not Qulli, not Baaz, nothing whatsoever. Ironically after stating this is his creed, he forgot what he actually believed, because in the debate Maulvi Sadiq Kohati started to quote verses of Quran and Tafasir to establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has some knowledge of Ghayb. This was jumped on by Muslim scholar Abdul Tawab Siddiqi and his associates. In Maulana Abdul Tawab Siddiqi’s turn it was pointed out what Maulvi Sadiq Kohati wrote that his creed is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) absolutely does not have any Ghayb. Yet he has spent his own time attempting to justify that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does have some/baaz knolwedge of Ghayb. Consider it his idiotic nature or deceptive Ibleesi tactics, Maulvi Sadiq Kohati Al-Deobandi denied that he spent time establishing some/baaz knowledge of Ghayb. It backfired, because there were two cameras recording the entire debate and recording was played back and fact was established that he did indeed establish and argue for some/baaz ilm al Ghayb for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). My take on this debate is that, Maulvi Sadiq Kohati khabees and scum of the earth definitely is, but got confused with linguistic definition of Ghayb and Deobandi definition of Ghayb. He wrote his creed in light of Deobandi definition of Ilm Al Ghayb but due to lack of intellectual minerals lost the track and ended up employing linguistic definition and on basis of this argued for baaz/some ilm of Ghayb for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The ikhtilaf between Muslims and Deobandis over Ghayb is due to differing definitions of Ghayb. What is Ilm Al Ghayb according to orthodox Islam is not according to Deobandi definition of Ilm Al Ghayb, and what is Ilm Al Ghayb according to Deobandi defintion is Ilm Ghayb according to orthodox Muslims definition.

- [40] Simple Muslim; celebrating birthday of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is good. clever/deceitful heretic: Yes of course it is good there is no harm in it … but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) never celebrated his own birthday and he said every newly invented matter is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, celebrating his birthday is newly invented practice hence it is a innovation a misguidance. Note, how he agreed but went on to say his own position. Now a simple minded unsuspecting Muslim would not be able to figure out the tactic - good cop VS bad cop routine being employed. Now the hopeless individual in short term will only register what agrees with him (i.e. celebrating birthday of Prophet is good thing) and not pay attention to what will do damage to him on long term (i.e. every new matter is innovation and misguidance, celebration of Prophet’s birthday is innovation). This tactic creates doubts in the mind of listener and listener begins to doubt his own judgment and people tend to resolve this type of doubts by adopting various techniques. Commonly a simple minded Muslim one whose knowledge is absolutely zero like mine was at that time is likely to not even realize and accept both. Then depending on who he is discussing, like a dual personality individual, will find him self defending or attacking it, without realizing the contradiction he is living. And if the individual is consistently being exposed to one side views for long enough eventually Satan will make him forget one side and his mind will suppress one belief and make prominent another – the one discussed and explained consistently. Others will put it down to; Oh I am less knowledgeable but this brother knows Quran/Hadith, my fault. They are unlikely to challenge the Deobandi/Wahhabi due to uncertainties plaguing their mind. So they resort to go along with ‘brother’ who is more knowledgeable despite contradictions or may ask questions, answers to which will help him resolve the doubts/confusion. Ones bit more brute and with no prisoner attitude will challenge that is if they realize the game being played with their mind. By paying attention to second part of information (i.e. every new matter is innovation and misguidance, celebration of Prophet’s birthday is innovation) and if one remembers that Wahhabi/Deobandi agreed with him on Prophet’s birthday celebration being good he is likely to notice the contradiction. He will think it’s a contradiction because when the hopeless individual says its good, he means its good, ok to celebrate, no harm no sin, perfectly fine in Islam and he assumes the Wahhabi/Deobandi agreed with it this meaning. So he will realize by saying its innovation and misguidance its not good in Islam. If he challenges he will be told I meant good in linguistic sense, look all people do is read Quran, give speeches … nothing bad about these aspects but its truly innovation and misguidance according to Islam – this is why I said its misguidance and innovation. So it will come down to simple Muslim not being capable of understanding his more educated brainwasher. If this happens too often then person is likely to remember that previous five/six times he misunderstood and his ‘brother’ meant something else … he will unlikely to challenge and ask questions answers to which will brainwash him. The end is, if you are not equipped with right knowledge then your friends/associates will manage to sway you from your belief. So choose your friends carefully or at least have strong support from right people to whom you can refer to when you need help on religious issues. Never allow someone from outside of Ahle Sunnat to dictate to you what you believe. Always refer to scholars of Ahle Sunnat and seek help of professionals and equip your self with knowledge which allows you to judge matters yourself and not be forever dependent upon guidance of others.

- [41] Following link leads to scanned image of Hifz Ul Iman in Urdu, here. Deobandi translation of the statement in question follows: “Moreover, if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will ask for clarification from him: what does he mean by this ghayb? Does he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of it, whichever part it may be? If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts, because every one of them knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden from him.” Note, Deobandi translator has not translated the Hifz Ul Iman. Rather he has translated the Hifz Ul Iman with additions from Al Muhannad. And here is my own translation of the statement – directly from Hifz Ul Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to purified essence [of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] then issue needing to be enquired, is this some ghayb or all/every ghayb [known to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala], if some knowledge of ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor [Nabi e Kareem sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] knowledge of Ghayb like of this is even possessed by Tom, Dick, and Harry, in fact every child, madman, every animal and carnivores [animals] possesses [such knowledg of ghayb] because every person knows something which is hidden from another person, [sarcastically writes] then we should call everyone of them Aalim Ul Ghayb (i.e. knower of ghayb).” I will not comment on the nature of the statement here, in sha Allah in future articles will be dedicated to this topic.

- [42] It was in the end of 2009, four years aftering becoming Muslim, that I properly investigated this issue in detail, due to discussion on IslamiMehfil. Prior to this my understanding was; disciple was awake and he recited the Kalimah. Proper investigation into issue can be seen in the following thread, here, and my posts which indicate my research into matter can be read here, 36, 43, and 45. In reality it was a dream in which Mawlana Thanvi’s disciple recites Durud Shareef as stated above. He wakes up and attempts to rectify the errors in recitation of Durud Shareef in dream by reciting it while he’s awake. He fails to recite it correctly and recites it again as mentioned above. To rectify this he attempts to recite Kalimah and he recites it as mentioned above and this recitation of Kalimah and Durud Shareef in which Mawlana Thanvi is stated to be, our Master, our Prophet and this continued all day. In response to this Mawlana Thanvi wrote, in this incident there was confirmation that one toward whom you refer to [in your Durud Shareef and Kalimah – i.e. Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi] is firmly upon the Sunnah [of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam]. Shari’ah does not excuse utterances of Kufr even if the violations of Islamic law and core tenents is excused with; I was not control of my limbs and tongue. Mawlana Thanvi was pleased with Kufr of his disciple and one being pleased with Kufr is guilty of Kufr.

- [43] Now I am of opinion this had nothing to do with Ijtihad, or mistake but this was deliberate attempt to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by putting words into mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for sake of his own tazleel (i.e. humiliation). Even the children who have never attended a Madrassa know that Prophets are alive in their graves and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has forbidden the earth to decompose their bodies. My understanding is that this knowledge is and was elementary, and Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi deliberately chose to write this to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note he wrote; Prophet said, ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In Urdu words, khaq mein milna, mitti mein mil jana, mitti mein milna, are always used in meaning of, destroying something in such a fashion that it leaves no distinguishable sign between soil and the item destroyed. And such destruction with the usage of word mitti mein milna is always associated with negative conotations of dishonour, disgrace, and humiliation. If someone said, ham nay ussay itna mara kay ussay mitti mein mala deeya, it would mean we beat him so much that we made him worthless [like dust]. Or utterly humiliated him with such excessive beatings. In every such usage, meaning of humiliation and disgrace is part of it. Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi was also familiar with how typically this word was used. Despite this he attributed the words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In other words Ismail Dehalvi wrote that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about himself; I will one day die become dust. Neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said this nor has a companion uttered such blasphemous words. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has honoured Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with life in his grave a more real life then earthly life, bestowed upon him the life of paradise.

- [44] Tazkiratul Ikhwan, pages 91/92. Click here to view Urdu original scan. Note, brown underlined material was of my concern.

- [45] “For, no true understanding of God have they when they say, "Never has God revealed anything unto man." Say: "Who has bestowed from on high the divine writ which Moses brought unto men as a light and a guidance, [and] which you treat as [mere] leaves of paper, making a show of them the while you conceal [so] much - although you have been taught [by it] what neither you nor your forefathers had ever known?" Say: "God!" And then leave them to play at their vain talk.” [Ref: 6:91]

- [46] Quran is means of bringing them out of darkness and proof of it being Noor, follows: “O mankind! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof from your Lord; and We sent down to you a manifest light.” [Ref: 4:174] “Alif-Lam-Ra. (This is) a Book which We have revealed unto in order that you might lead mankind out of darkness into light, by their Lord's permission, to the Path of the All-Mighty, the Owner of all Praise.” [Ref:14:1] Quran is the basis of religion of Islam and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated Islam is Noor: “They (the disbelievers) want to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the disbelievers hate (it).” [Ref: 9:32] “Is he whose breast Allah has opened to Islam, so that he is in light from His Lord? So woe to those whose hearts are hardened against remembrance of Allah! They are in plain error!” [Ref: 39:22]

- [47] I have listened to Maulvi Ananymous’s speech again and I noticed he has addressed this point also. Maybe after listening to his speech, this principle was planted in my mind but as far as the validity of the principle is concerned it is valid. How I did not realise he adressed this issue in the very same speech, beats me. Maybe I didn’t pay attention to the remainder of the speech because his first point was enough shocking enough to scramble for books to verify what he said and his speech was probally still was being played and ocasionally might have lent him ear but not for long enough to grasp the entirity of his explanation.

- [48] “As We sent in you Messenger from among you, that he recites Our signs to you and purifies you and teaches you the Book and knowledge and teaches you that which you did not know.” [Ref: 2:151] “He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper." [Ref: 7:157]

- [49]"On the day in which the Messenger of Allah entered Al-Madinah, everything in it was illuminated. Then, on the day in which he died, everything in it was dark. And we did not remove our hands from the Messenger of Allah, while we were burying him because our hearts felt so estranged." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B46, H3618]

- [50] Orthodox Muslims believe Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was the first creation created by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this Noor was seperated in parts from which the creation was created, and a part remained which was placed in Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and it was transferred contiously until it came to womb of mother of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and entered the blessed body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

- [51] Nashar at-Teeb Fi Zikar al-Nabi al-Habib, by Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Publishers: Mushtaq Book Corner, Printers: Nayyur Assad Printers – Lahore. First Printed: November 2003 – Computerised Eidition. Link at Marfat.com.

- [52] I have read footnotes in Nashar at-Teeb and works of modern Deobandi scholarship and have come to understand that according to Deobandiyyah. Nooraniyyah is valid belief but Noor being refered in the Hadith of Jabir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is regarding soul of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In other words they believe the first thing created was the soul of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Before commenting further, I want to point out that I am not confident if the footnote of Nashar at-Teeb was inserted by Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. I believe it is a later addition to, damage control, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows better. The first criticism comes, if Rooh (i.e. soul) was intended meaning of the word Noor then according to Hadith Rooh of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was seperated into four parts and then fourth part of that soul was further divided into four parts. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) creates the raw materials and from which we create and He creates. He does not create entire beings without first creating the raw material from which creature is to be created. He didn’t creat the cow and then shredded it into minerals. He creates minerals and through a process assembles these minerals into cow. The building material for the soul has to exist before the soul. What was created first; the soul, or the Noor, out of which the soul is created? It was for this reason that I rejected this idiotic distortion of Hadith and for the reason that Hadith was clearly validated from Quranic text.

- [53] There is a new trend amongst the Wahhabis/Salafis of Hanbali sect to distort/blur the differences and distinctions betweeen Deobandism and Wahhabism enough, to gradually make Deobandism into Hanbali Wahhabism. Of course there is huge gap to cover gradual evolution of Deobandism will move it further toward Wahhabism, especially if Deobandis continue to be part of this process. Also there are signs that some scholars, or a faction of Deobandis is beginning to rediscover the earlier teachings of their major scholars and as a result there has been back peddling toward these understandings. Depending on how this conflict plays out either the Deobandism will lean closer the orthodox Islam or morph into a new Deobandism which is far more closer to Wahhabism then it currently is. Result of this would be that aspects of Nooraniyyah which are evident from their books will be rejected, history would be revised, and new members would be taught that these books were written prior to leaving Sufism leanings. And the books which these major scholars wrote could not be removed from circulation hence a misconception about their true creed has remained. Basicly Deobandis will do what the Wahhabis have done to every major scholar of pre-Wahhabism era. He repented near the end of life, he repented because so and so Shaykh says it, and they died upon creed of Salaf as-Saliheen.

- [54] “He is insulter of Nabi of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and reading his book will not bring you any benefit.”

- [55] “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to purified essence [of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] then issue needing to be enquired, is this some ghayb or all/every ghayb [known to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala], if some knowledge of ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor [Nabi e Kareem sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] this much knowledge of Ghayb is even possessed by Tom, Dick, and Harry, in fact every child, madman, every animal and carnivores [animals] possesses [such knowledg of ghayb] because every person knows something which is hidden from another person, [sarcastically writes] then we should call everyone of them Aalim Ul Ghayb (i.e. knower of ghayb).”

- [56] It would have been Shirk but permitted Shirk. Like, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) could have had a son, His son would have been from what He created. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) having son would be Shirk, would it not? And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) chose to have a son and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) informed us about it and instructed us to believe in it. Then would we be believing in a legitimate form of Shirk or not? What does that tell you about Wahhabi/Deobandi definition of Shirk? Does it not tell you that their Tawheed revolves around, if there is evidence then it is not Shirk and if there is no evidence it is Shirk? This is their stupid definition and understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. Islamicly when something has been determined to be Shirk it doesn’t become all goody, goody, it remains Shirk even if someone has found valid evidence from Quran and Hadith. This is why it is important to point out that according to Islamic understanding creed of Hadhir Nazir was never Shirk. From Islamic perspective it was an issue of – is it established with evidence or is it an innovation. Nothing grand as, major Shirk, which the idiots from Ibleesi group of Najd would like you to believe.

- [57] Maulvi Hussain Ali Deobandi, a student of Mawlvi Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi Deobandi, wrote ‘Tafsir’ called Balaghatul Hiraan, in which he stated Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only knows what has happened after an event as transpired but not before it. So I was just stating his belief to illustrate my point.

- [58] Translation, directing effort is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey.