Exposing The Reality Of Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman With Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan And Taghyeer Ul-Unawan.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi wrote letter to Shaykh Thanvi citing Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Hussam al-Haramayn. Shaykh Darbhangi informs Shaykh Thanvi that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following statement; Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by infant, madman, every animal, and every quadruped. Then he proceeded to ask four questions regarding Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. The response to these four questions was published as Bast al-Banan.

Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement:

Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood!  And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16 , here]

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat On Shaykh Thanvi In His Hussam al-Haramayn:

Shaykh Naumani in his Faisla Kun Munazra verbatim quoted the following: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’[1] I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.”[2] [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here. .] Following continues from where Shaykh Naumani left but it is being quoted from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (alayhi rahmat ar-Rahman) Hussam al-Haramayn: “And how the boastful ignormous could not understand that Zayd and Umru and names of others he mentioned; if they know a matter of Ghayb even then it would gained through speculation. And definitive (knowledge of) matters of Ghayb is purely for Prophets (alayhis salam). And definitive knowledge of Ghayb if it is known by non-Prophets then it is through Prophets informing them and not through anyone else. And have you not seen how your Lord has stated: ‘Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers.’ [Ref: 3:179] ‘The knower of the unseen (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone, Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, …’ [Ref: 72:26/27] See how this man left the Quran and lost his faith. And ended up enquiring what is difference between Prophet and animals (in regards to Ghayb). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sets seal on heart of every deceptively arrogant (person) like this.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88, here.]

Bast Al Banan The Deception Of Shaytan:

Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi introduces why the need for questions arose: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal). Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” He then proceeds to pose four questions about what was attributed to Shaykh Thanvi by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “(i) Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such? (ii) If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied? (iii) Or did you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” And following is response of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi: (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.]

1^st Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 1^st Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi:

Shaykh Darbhangi introduced the allegation of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in the following words: “… that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal).” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi in his own words the following words: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” And in what he quoted of Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” In context of what Shaykh Darbhangi attributed to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi Shaykh Darbhangi enquired: “Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such?” Shamelessly Shaykh Thanvi tells a lie and states: “In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart.” Ala Hadhrat quoted Shaykh Thanvi’s controversial statement and meaning of it is; there is nothing special about baaz knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge like of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by regulars Joe’s, every; infant, lunatic, and all; animals and quadrupeds. And this statement precisely is what Shaykh Thanvi EXPLICITLY wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …”

Tagheer ul-Unwan Exposes Lies Told In Bast al-Banan:

Shaykh Thanvi wrote Tagheer ul-Unwan. In which a un-named supporter of Shaykh Thanvi suggests to Shaykh that he should alter the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. He believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting and based this fact the un-named Mawlvi’s omitted portion of letter likely read: Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh). And that statement is not from heaven/sky nor it is revelation; whose apparent wording and (contextual) reason of statement with exact words should remain” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in respose to un-named adviser and questioner writes: “It is very good advice. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. Prior to this no one pointed out the reason (why the statement of Hifz ul-Iman should be changed) therefore (I held to belief that) altering of statement would make it against the intended meaning (of Hifz ul-iman and this would) evidence of confession (of Kufr). And confession of Kufr is Kufr therefore didn’t only think alteration of necessary but didn’t even consider it legitimate. Now in this question the reason stated is realistic enough (i.e.أمرواقعي). Therefore accepting your advice I am altering the …” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page122, here.] Shaykh Thanvi confesses to fact that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is; if seen has it is written then it is insulting and Deobandis are struggling to defend him. And he stated it is amr wa’qi’i what the questioner stated. In other words he agrees with what the questioner stated; statement is apparently insulting for those lack depth of understanding, the meaning objected are genuine possibility, and his followers struggle in defending his statement.

1^st Question And 1^st Answer And Great Lie Of Shaykh Thanvi:

It can be accepted that did not intend and it the insulting meaning was not even realized by Shaykh Thanvi but to say he remained ignorant of it from date of publishing Hifz ul-Iman to publishing Bast al-Banan is impossible. Hifz ul-Iman was written in 1319 Hijri and year after Sayyidi Ala Hadrat (rahimullah) wrote Al Mo’tamad al-Mustanad (1320 Hijri) in which he pointed out insult/Kufr of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Then in 1324 Hijri Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) wrote Hussam al-Haramayn in which he refuted statement of Shaykh Thanvi and declared him Kafir. Then in 1329 Hijri Shaykh Thanvi wrote Bast al-Banan and that is exactly ten years after Hifz ul-Iman. And the controversy which Hifz ul-Iman caused; the protests, Hifz ul-Iman burnings events and for Shaykh to say; I never wrote anything as such is bit stupid and great lie. No sane person would believe that Shaykh remained ignorant of what he wrote for ten years during which mobs were protesting and after his blood.

2^nd Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 2^nd Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi:

Shaykh Darbhangi enquires from Shaykh Thanvi: “If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied?” Shaykh Thanvi once again shamelessly lies and states: “This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: …”  In the following portion Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi states: “A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin (i.e. righteous Muslim); in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Here Shaykh Thanvi has indirectly/implicitly has stated what he stated earlier and what he was accused of by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Not forgetting he explicitly/directly stated what he was accused of. And once again I quote his own words: ); “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…”

2^nd Question, 2^nd Answer: Kufri/Insulting Meaning Can Be Implied:

Now getting to the meat of matter: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani are on the record for presenting Taweel (i.e. alternative interpretation) of this statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi are of view statement is in sense of quantity and aisa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) and not in comparative sense. And they believe if it was in comparative sense then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would be insulting/Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand is of opinion; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is to be understood in comparative sense because aisa (i.e. like this) has been used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And if it was used in sense of quantity; in meaning of itna then it would be insulting/Kufr. Moving on while ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent implicit Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said it aisa is used in this sense and in this meaning and not in this. And if it was in this meaning then it would have been objectionable (due to being insulting and Kufr). Due to which these Shuyukh resorted to stating in which sense the statement is to be understood, and in which sense it isn’t supposed to be understood, and how the word aisa was used, and how it was not used. So there is at the very least a very real chance of statement being Kufr/insulting and this was known to followers of Shaykh Thanvi and this is why they resorted to interpretation of controversial statement to turn it away from insult/kufr. In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent implied Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi.

Shaykh Darbhangi’s 3^rd Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s 3^rd Answer:

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” Shaykh Darbhangi enquired regarding what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “Or did you intend such a topic/meaning?” And Shaykh Thanvi responds to it by saying: “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning?” Shaykh Thanvi deemed what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to him as filthy (i.e. khabees) and he said he could not even comprehend it let alone intend such filth. But the grand master of deception and lies precisely wrote what he deems khabees mazmoon (i.e. filthy subject/meaning): “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…”

Shaykh Darbhangi’s 4^th Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Last Answer:

For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please study both parts and see if there are differences in summary of what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi and what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman. Now coming to what Shaykh Darbhangi enquired from Shaykh Thanvi in quite detail: “If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” Shaykh Thanvi answered the question in detail saying: “Any person believes as such, or without believing it, explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (from the merits of) pride of children of Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions.” In light of what was attributed by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to Shaykh Thanvi, and what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman, and his own Fatwah of Kufr: We Muslims would be justified to say; Shaykh Thanvi declared himself Kafir.

Conclusion:

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi belief that there is nothing special about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb because knowledge of like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also known to every day Joe’s, every infant, lunatic and all animals and quadrupeds. And this is precisely what Shaykh Thanvi wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Thanvi deceptively denied ever writing anything like it and declared it Kufr but Hifz ul-Iman is testimony to it and proof of his own Kufr in light of his own edict. Further proof of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman being insulting and disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), therefore Kufr, is the statement of supporter of Shaykh Thanvi, which he himself quoted in Tagheer ul-Unwan. And Shaykh Thanvi agreed with conclusions of his supporter. Therefore the Muslims were/are justified in declaring Shaykh Thanvi of being Kafir and charging those who defend his statement of Kufr.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Footnotes:

- [1] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) only quoted the under lined part of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal and quadrupeds because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left the material in between because Shaykh Thanvi explicitly stated baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not special. The material which Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left out Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the baaz Ghayb is doesn’t establish speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. He merely quoted his belief and not reasoning for his belief because objective was to inform readers of Shaykh Thanvi’s belief.

- [2] Please note Shaykh Naumani translated Arabic words of Hussam ul-Haramayn in his Faisla Kun Munazra (i.e. the decisive debate) and his translation of Arabic Hussam al-Haramayn is word for word copy of Shaykh Thanvi’s Urdu found in Hifz ul-Iman, here. Indicating Shaykh Naumani did not find any difference between Arabic of Hussam al-Haramayn and Urdu of Hifz ul-Iman. And following his footsteps I have inserted relevent portions of my English translation of Hifz ul-Iman into English translation of Hussam al-Haramayn.

Edited 19 جنوری 2018 by MuhammedAli