Contradictons In Deobandi Understanding Of Hifz ul-Iman And The Fruits Of Disagreement.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

In an effort to defend against blame of insult/disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Deobandi scholarship engaged in a massive compaign of disinformation and distortion. But the lies and compaign of deception had one missing ingredient, the truth, and a such they all contradicted and belied themselves. All who took on path of defending Shaykh Thanvi from charge of Kufr complicated the problem even more for themselves. In my own words: One Maulvi said it means this, if it was that then it would be Kufr. And the other Maulvi said it means that, and if it was this meaning then it would be Kufr.  One declared other Kafir and other declared one Kafir. They all tried their luck and all belied and resulted in refuting each other and indirectly declaring each other Kafir.

Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman:

Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If 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 (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here.] Note the underlined Urdu word is aisa (i.e. like).

0.0 - The Quotations Taken From Deobandi Side:

This article will utilize material of debate famous debate between Islamic scholar Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Manzoor Naumani al-Deobandi. The Deobandi account of debate was been published some sixty years after the debate as: Fatah Bareilly Ka Diskash Nazara. In reality this ‘victory’ was such a crushing defeat. When truth became evident to him Shaykh Naumani couldn’t just accept it so Shaykh Naumani made excuse that he needs to refresh his Wudhu. And he didn’t return to his podium; this was due to his ‘victory’. Shaykh Naumani’s great escape was so shameless that he left his, specs, books, turban, walking-staff and even his shoes in the Masjid, and never came back, again sign of his victory. Shaykh Naumani never debated any Islamic scholar again after this crushing defeat. Prior to this debate Shaykh Naumani had some twenty-five debates but this one proved so crushing that it made him debate-pacifist. His magzine which was printed in Bareilly stopped selling due to his ‘victory’. Deobandi Madrassa which he was in-charge of had exodus moment after the debate and was eventually closed its doors again due to his ‘victory’. His Deobandi students joined Madrassa Manazar e Islam which was run by brother of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah).

0.1 - Sixty Years After The Debate Deobandis Claim Victory:

Some sixty years after (i.e. in 90’s) the Deobandis decided to publish the work of lie/deception using Muslim account [which was published in same year of debate] as template and inserted great deal in it and called it Fatah e Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara (i.e. beautiful scenary of conquest of Bareilly). Publishing it after so long itself casts doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of Deobandi account because after so long it is almost impossible to remember what happened sixty years ago. Even those who were in twenty’s at the time of writing this account would have been in their eighty’s; an age where it is difficult to remember what the person did yesterday. And which one of them can claim to accurately, in sequence, tell me what they did a week before; sixty years after; get over yourself liar, you’re not that good. Any how despite authors best effort Deobandi account is enough to prove Shaykh Naumani had no place to hide except escape. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills readers will see the truth shining in 3.0/3.4 part of this article. Note Muslim account of debate was published as; Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Mufassil Rudad (i.e. Clear Account Of God Given Victory In Debate Of Bareilly), here. Coincidently since 90’s Deobandis have also been attempting to turn debate of Jhang [between great scholar; Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi rahimullah and Deobandi Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi] as their victory. Such decisive was Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi’s defeat just like Shaykh Naumani’s defeat Shaykh Jhangvi never spoke against Muslims in his speeches instead he targetted Shias. The judges all unanimously gave verdict that Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) won the debate but 20 years after it it became a Deobandi victory. And luckily the recording of Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi’s (rahimullah) debate with Shaykh Jhangvi is still available so the truth cannot be concealed. So it seems there is concentrated effort to turn past defeats into victories by 90’s generation of Deobandis.

0.2 - Authenticity And Accuracy Of Debate Accounts:

I do not believe Muslim account of debate is hundered percent accurate, linked above, because details cannot be remembered. At best even this account is brief and from perspective of person who witnessed it and not what was said by both parties. Meaning author gave his own insight how he viewed the debate. Deobandi account has distinction; it is free of this but its publication in 1990’s erodes its authenticity. At best the content has been improved and likely with aid of Shaykh Naumani because it he was alive uptil 1997, or maybe in light of his written works. The writer omitted the contradiction between Shaykh Naumani and his teacher Shaykh Madani which Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) brought up again and again in debate: Such as mention of aisa (i.e. like this) not being for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) meaning itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) and yeh (i.e. this) according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi. And according to Shaykh Madani aisa (i.e. like this) being for tashbeeh and not being for itna (i.e. this-much). Shaykh Naumani could not own it nor he could disown position of his senior Shaykh Madani and the result was he had no answer. He was being refuted by his own side and his own teacher. This contradiction will be part of this article.

1.0 – Aisa Is Of Is-Qadr, Itna, Yeh And Not Tashbeeh:

Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is reported to have said: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] “And when I refuted your saying and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages89, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Naumani also said aisa (i.e. like) can also be in meaning of yeh (i.e. this): “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani writes word aisa (means; like this) has been used in meaning of itna (means; this much) and it is not for tashbeeh (means; to compare, comparision) between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other group mentioned in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In the following Shaykh Naumani states both meanings itna/yeh: “I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani that aisa is in meaning of itna/is-qadr (both mean; this much): “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Alhasil according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi aisa (i.e. like) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi has not been used for sake of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but in meaning of yeh, itna, and is-qadr.

1.1 – Aisa For Tasbeeh, Not Of Itna And Is-Qadr:

Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani contradicts Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi and says if it was used in meaning of itna (also indirectly implies; is-qadr, because both mean same) then it would be (valid) reason for objection because it would imply prophetic knowledge is being equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. He goes on to acknowledge that word aisa (like) is for sake of tashbeeh:  “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much). If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] In another part of his book Shaykh Madani indicates that there is tashbeeh in prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, carnivores but it is in baaz (i.e. limited) al-Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (between Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam and Zaid, Bakr, Umar etc) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] And on same page goes on to say that anyone who deos not see the usage of aisa in meaning of tashbeeh is basicly an idiot: “Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz (i.e. some, limited) and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in his Tahgeer ul-Unwan quotes letter of un-named Deobandi Mawlvi who requested statement of Hifz ul-Iman is altered because it is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh).” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Note this statement of Shaykh Thanvi even according to his own supporter is insulting and is in sense of comparision.

1.2 – Shaykh Naumani On Consequences If Aisa For Tashbeeh:

According to Deobandi account of Munazra Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of tashbeeh because aisa is used to compare prophetic knowledge with Ghayb of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. And based on his this belief he said the following: “Muslims! Listen again; this is the Kufri statement of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this a portion from Ghayb or every/all Ghayb (of Allah)? If a portion 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 (i.e. aisa) of this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds and carnivores possesses (such knowledg of Ghayb) as well because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” See the obvious meaning of this statement is that knowledge of Ghayb possessed by jaisa (i.e. like) of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. like) of it is also possessed by every; child, lunatic, and every animal. What can be more disrespectful of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then this? You (Shaykh Naumani) say; in this statement word jaisa (i.e. like) is not used and I agree this is the case but word aisa (i.e. like) is used and this (aisa) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Note if I say; Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is aisa (i.e. like) of donkey, is like of dog, then will there be no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)! Certainly there is (tashbeeh) and you will definitely be upset over it (i.e. usage of such words for you) even though (aisa) is without word jaisa (i.e. like) and only word aisa (i.e. like) has been used. Hence due to usage of aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman therefore certainly knowledge of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been compared (i.e. tashbeeh) with (knowledge of) animals, lunatics, and his knowledge has been equaled with them.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Page61, here.] In another part of heavily embellished and greatly distorted account of debate Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is reported to have said: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh. Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned). Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr?  Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, here] Please pay attention to the following: Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi believe aisa was not used to compare the prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds, and carnivores. Instead aisa is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) which denotes quantity and it is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani believes  if aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be insult and therefore Kufr: “This should be apparent to the honorable audience due to the discussion that between me and Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) that there is no dispute over principles and (understanding of) issue (of disrespect being Kufr). Because we all agree that insult of leader of both worlds (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) and even slight disrespect is Kufr but it is severe (type of) Kufr. Dispute is only over the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Suppose if meaning of this statement is as Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) says then it would also be Kufr according to us. And if the meaning of statement is that which I have explained then even according to Maulvi Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) Kufr would not be proven.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages69/70, here.] Alhasil point is Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe if Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was of comparision/tashbeeh, as Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and as Muslims believe then they too would deem it Kufr.

Shaykh Naumani Contradicts His Own Shaykh Thanvi:

Shaykh Naumani wrote if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was written in sense of tashbeeh then it would be Kufr. Not surprisingly Shaykh Naumani is contraidicting his own Shaykh Thanvi by saying this. Memory of Shaykh Naumani failed him. Ten years had passed from the first publication of Hifz ul-Iman then Shaykh Darbhangi asked four questions answer to which were published as Bast al-Banan. While responding to Shaykh Darbhangi’s questions Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Naumani says it would be Kufr if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of tashbeeh and Shaykh Thanvi says even though statement is not in comparative sense but even if it was there would be nothing wrong with it because of x y z.

1.3 - Naumani, Darbhangi, Madani, And Thanvi Caught In Their Lies:

Over all, its two VS two, match. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani. Two say tashbeeh isn’t Kufr and two say tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement would be Kufr. Shaykh Naumani says aisa is in meaning of yeh, is-qadr/itna. Meaning of aisa as itna Shaykh Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani. And against these two is Shaykh Madani who says it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna because if there was itna then there would be equality in quantity of prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants; which would make Shaykh Thanvi’s statement Kufr. In over-all Shaykh Thanvi has two positions, aisa in meaning of itna, evident from his example of Allah is aisa Raziq. And he holds to position even in tashbeeh sense the statement would not be Kufr. In other words Shaykh Thanvi believes there is no possibility of Kufr how ever the statement is understood; in sense of quantity or tashbeeh; there is no Kufr. In tashbeeh sense Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by his tag team; Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi. In sense of quantity Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by Shaykh Madani. And Shaykh Madani’s position is refuted by Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi reasoning. And position of Shaykh Naumani/Darbhangi justly is refuted by Shaykh Madani. In summary we witness a little royal jungle rumble between the Maulvis of Deobandism on same statement.

1.4 - The Verdict On Aisa, Itna, Is-qadr, Yeh, And Tashbeeh:

Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is in meaning of itna/is-qadr and yeh therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement was for sake of comparision then it would be Kufr. And Shaykh Madani believes statement is in meaning of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of itna/is-qadr it would be Kufr. Alhasil Shaykh Darbhangi/Naumani VS Madani; both groups consider other party’s interpretation as Kufr. It would have helped Islamic cause greatly if both parties of Deobandis had declared each other Kafir for holding to Kufri understanding of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement because then Muslims wouldn’t have been accused of saying both parties are Kafir. And we the Muslims say to both of them: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi you both are correct in your understanding; tashbeeh is Kufr. And Shaykh Madani you’re also correct; statement of Hifz ul-Iman in meaning of itna (or is-qadr) is Kufr. The Islamic verdict is that there is no valid interpretation of controversial and Kufri statement; of tashbeeh is Kufr and of itna/is-qard and yeh is Kufr. Islamic position, inlcuding Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimulllah alayhi ta’ala) and Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), with regards to Hifz ul-Iman has always been; it is Kufr and there is no valid interpretation which can save Shaykh Thanvi from Kufr accept repentence.

2.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement And Its Interpretations:

“If 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 (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi agreed upon itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) meaning and Shaykh Naumani ascribed to an additional meaning of yeh (i.e. this). And both of these possibilities have been put into context of Shaykh Thanvi’s : (i) “… what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this much (i.e. itna/is-qadr) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” (ii) In light of Shaykh Naumani’s aisa meaning yeh the controversial statement would read: “… what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb;this (i.e. yeh) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores ...” The objective was to remove natural meaning of tashbeeh, or remove obvious tashbeeh from Shaykh Thanvi and make it difficult for the readers to see tashbeeh in the statement.

2.1 - Claim Of No Tashbeeh In Itna/Is-Qadr Refuted:

Shaykh Thanvi statement goes like: “… 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 (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In the underlined part of sentence he is talking about prophetic Ghayb. Shaykh Thanvi enquires what is so unique about baaz (some/limited), or; what is so unique about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb, and then goes on to say; this-much knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr: “… aisa knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” It means he has compared the quantity of prophetic knowledge in category of baaz with the mentioned (i.e. Zayid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants) otherwise he could not have said this-much knowledge is possessed by them. And he could not have concluded in the following if he had not compared the quantity of prophetic baaz knowledge with the mentioned: “Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” A point of principle must be remembered: To negate, or to establish uniqueness, speciality of prophetic knowledge; comparision (i.e. tashbeeh) between the Ghuyub of mentioned beings (in statement of Hifz ul-iman) and Ghuyub  known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has to be made. And this comparision must be regarding types of Ghuyub known and of quantity of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) and beings mentioned in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Please note Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of knowing Ghayb to negate application of title Alim ul-Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And from logical point of view therefore he must have compared prophetic knowledge with knowledge of what he mentioned: “… Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” Even if reader is unable to percieve it the stated principle, underlined, should make it easy for the reader to accept there is tashbeeh in itna and is-qadr in the light of fact; Shaykh Thanvi negated uniqueness of prophetic of Ghayb.

2.2 - For Argument Sake: There Is No Tashbeeh In Itna And Is-Qadr:

Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman even though is statement of tashbeeh; proof of it apart from Islamic scholarship is Shaykh Madani as well; we will disregard this for sake of argument. Shaykh wrote: “… 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 (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” The statement can be understood in two ways, aisa is referring to baaz, therefore statement: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this/this-much (baaz; some, limited) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” Also aisa can be zameer (i.e. hint) toward prophetic knowledge and this is best and natural understanding of controversial statement. In this context the statement would read:  “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this/this-much knowledge (of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” If aisa was hint toward baaz, or even if aisa was hint toward prophetic-Ghayb; in both cases prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of mentioned is being equaled in quantity of baaz. This why Shaykh Madani said aisa is not in meaning of itna but in meaning of tashbeeh. Al-hasil even without tashbeeh there is Kufr in the statement because quantity is being compared.

3.3 - Mother Of Righteous Muslims And Case Of Implied Tashbeeh:

Mother of righteous believers took offense when mention of women was made amongst those which invalidate prayer: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493) “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486) Note even though it was just a mention of women, dogs, and donkeys being cause of invalidating prayers she took exception to it. The reason is obvious; the tashbeeh was implied due to women being mentioned in list of animals; dogs and donkeys. She had a very refined and comprehensive understanding of tashbeeh therefore she noted the logical implication of being mentioned in list of unclean animals. If an bad-ikhlaq (i.e. ill-mannered) person like our Shaykh Madani says: All humans are children of Adam (alayhis salam) therefore brothers/sisters. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi, the cursed Firawn, the Dajjal, Abu Jahl, Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani, Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi and others like them are brothers. A person with finely tuned sense of manners will understand that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by being mentioned in the list of worst human beings known to a Muslim. In this context lets visit the statement of Shaykh Thanvi again: “… if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; aisa (i.e. this-much, or this) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In this statement at the very least there is argument for tashbeeh due to use of aisa (i.e. like). And proof of aisa in the statement being used for tashbeeh is that Shaykh Madani took it in sense of tashbeeh. What would be the reaction of Umm ul-Momineen (radiallah ta’ala anhu) if she read this statement of Shaykh Thanvi? Would she give him good-news of being righteous Muslim or a disbeliever? Anyone with with love and respect and refined manners and is still upon Fitrah (i.e. pure state) will understand why this statement of Shaykh Thanvi is disrespectful.

4.0 - Aisa In Meaning Of Tashbeeh Is Kufr And Example From Shaykh Naumani:

If aisa was in comparative meaning as Shaykh Madani said; aisa is for tashbeeh. In this context Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “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; comparatively (such) knowledge is even by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” According to Shaykh Madani statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in comparative meaning on its natural meaning not in context of itna/is-qadr and yeh. And even Shaykh Naumani agrees it is but not in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in context of his self and his Shaykh Thanvi.

4.1 - Mawlana sardar Ahmad Sets A Trap And Shaykh Naumani Bites:

Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) knew Shaykh Naumani would not accept and tolerate if he and Shaykh Thanvi are insulted/disrespected using words similar to what Shaykh Thanvi used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So he goes on to say: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr?  Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?  [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] After this Shaykh Naumani responds to Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) with following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] He said the same in number of other places. Please note when Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge was compared to dog/donkey’s Shaykh Naumani tactfully responed to insult/disrespect by making the same statement about Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and just as Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) predicted Shaykh Naumani could not accept it and ended up telling the truth. Yet despite this Shaykh Naumani could not extend this respect to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and defended Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Note Shaykh Naumani found it insulting and disrespectful and saw tashbeeh in what Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) said because he had self respect, and had love and respect for Shaykh Thanvi. Any Muslim with an ounce of love and respect for the last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will feel the sting of disrespect and insult directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi.

5.0 - Use Of Ra’ee’ In Hadith By Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam):

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) served as guardian/protector of sheep according to following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "Allah did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep." His companions asked him, "Did you do the same?" The Prophet replied, "Yes, I used to shepherd the sheep of the people of Mecca for some Qirats." [Ref: Bukhari, B36, H463] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said; ruler, men, women, slaves are ‘ra’ee’ (i.e. shepherds) in meaning guide and guardian in the following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:The Messenger of Allah as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.” [Ref: Abu Dawood,  B19, H2922] And in this context son calling his father, or subject referring to his king as ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd, our guardian, our protector) isn’t offensive or insulting.

5.1 - Rai’na Distorted By Jews To Ra’eena:

When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) use to deliver speech companions; if a companion missed something due too far, or someone caughed something was missed, or due to not having capacity to understand what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, the companions would say ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us). And depending upon the circumstance Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) either will repeat what he said or rephrase it so it is accessible for all intellect levels. If the Jews were in the gathering they would distort the word ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and pronounce it as; ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our sheperd). And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions their distortion in the following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say; “We hear and disobey” - and they say; “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say; “ra'eena” (i.e. our shepherd) distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] Calling someone shepherd was, and even remains to this day way negating/discrediting literacy of someone. Due to Jews distorting the word to insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Note the instruction is to believers to not to use word rai’na because it was used by the Jews to disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggests word ‘undhurna’ (i.e. look upon us) which the Jews could not distort to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cryptively. Alhasil this verse prohibits usage of words/sentences which are perfectly fine but can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Rule of Islamic law is; if something is prohibited in lesser degree anything greater then the least is also forbidden. Therefore it would stand to reason, by default, words/sentences which are insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are also prohibited and the threat of punishment for disbelievers is inclusive of insulters.

5.2 - Shaykh Thanvi  In Light Verse Of Rai’na And Undhurna:

The companions used ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and Jews distorted it and used ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd). So one pronounciation was absolutely fine [because both are written absolutely same] and other was Kufr. Yet none of the companions are on the record for saying or justifying their usage through linguistical usage of ‘rai’na’ or even blaming Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for not knowing how they used it. Instead they realized the situation and left it for better suggestion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The right course of action as indicated by verse was to abandon the controversial statement after Shaykh Thanvi was informed. Not present taweel (i.e. interpretation) in his defence, repeal it, and repent because his statement was evidently insulting. Instead he resorted to denial and presented taweel of his statement and others from his side followed his evil Sunnah: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And in this sense Shaykh Thanvi and those who followed him are all equales.

5.3 - Judgement Regarding Statement And Interpretation Of Others:

According to Shaykh Naumani’s claim aisa in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr and in meaning of yeh and not for tashbeeh because in sense of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. According to Shaykh Madani it is to be understood in sense of tashbeeh and not in meaning of itna/is-qadr because it would be Kufr according to his understanding if it was in meaning of itna. Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani both hold to position; statement means this and if it was in this meaning it would be Kufr. Please note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] And the verse gives following meaning; do not use words which insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and which can be misconstrued to insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihiw as’sallam) but use words which are not insulting and which cannot be misconstrued to insult. In light of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani should have refrained from taweel of Shaykh Thanvi’s because by their own acknowledgment one meaning is insulting and therefore Kufr. And those who use insulting statements or statements which can be misconstrued to insult even after the prohibition of it has been made have been declared Kafirs and threatened with punishment: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Or the verse could also be interpreted to mean: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who disblieve in the command of verse) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Both interpretations boil down to Kufr; of those who insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or those who disbelieve in the order given in the verse. And implications of the verse for Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Darbhangi is that they are disbelievers and apostates. All those who believe and defend statement of Hifz ul-Iman after understanding it they are to be deemed Murtadeen (i.e. apostates) and Kafirs (i.e. disbeleivers) providing all avenues prior to Takfir have been exhausted.

Conclusion:

Shaykh Naumani understands aisa (i.e. like this) to mean yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi understand the usage of aisa to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much). And both negate usage of aisa in sense of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) because Shaykh Naumani considers use of aisa in sense of tashbeeh to be Kufr. In other words; according to Shaykh Naumani, if prophetic knowledge was being compared with every days Joe’s, lunatics, infants, with knowledge of animals then there would be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore verdict of Kufr. Shaykh Thanvi on other hand states it is in quantitive sense even if it was in comparative sense it wouldn’t be Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand believes statement was in comparative sense if it was in quantative sense then it would have been offensive. And Shaykh Thanvi agrees with him that in comparative sense it isn’t offensive but also believes it is not offensive in quantitive sense either. Understanding of Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Madani are two taweels of Shaykh Thanvi; one in quantitive sense, and other of comparative sense; which each side took from Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan while unknowingly considering his other taweel to be offensive. Shaykh Thanvi gets owned by his own representatives because both side of his followers consider one of his accepted version to be offensive. Therefore both positions of Shaykh Thanvi are offensive and Kufr.  And the grand act of providence is that Shaykh Naumani party VS Shaykh Madani essentially refute each other. In other words Shaykh Naumani’s understanding of itna/ is-qadr has been argued to be offensive by Shaykh Madani because he said it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna. And Shaykh Madani’s position of tashbeeh has been proven wrong by Shaykh Naumani because of his reasoning that comparative rendering would be offensive and quantitive is not. Revealing that if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was understood in light of itna/is-qadr, or yeh, or tashbeeh it is offensive and Kufr. The established contradiction between the Deobandi Maulvis will be enough for an intelligent person to realise; their accounts don’t match because both sides of Deobandism are lieing. And a believer who fears his Lord and loves the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take this contradiction as proof deception and lies being told by their scholarship to cover-up Shaykh Thanvi’s Kufr. It is important to note that Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) during the debate; as an act of strategy of war against enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) uttered following words about knowledge of Shaykh Naumani and his Shaykh Thanvi: “Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s.” It was then that Shaykh Naumani took offence citing tashbeeh the reason of his understanding. And this establishes the well known and established fact; Deobandis love/respect their own more then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Considering that one group considers A taweel to be insulting/Kufr and B to be perfectly in agreement with Shari’a. And the other considers A taweel to be perfectly justifiable in Shari’ah and B to be Kufr; in this context it can be said there is concensus that statement is insulting/Kufr in Deobandi scholarship. And it also can be said that there isn’t agreement on its Kufr. Negation of Kufr is explicitly stated and is intended objective and confirmation of statement being Kufr is unintended result of lies and deception. The understanding of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ made it obligatory for those who considered at least one taweel of Shaykh Thanvi to be of Kufr to abandon their efforts yet they persisted and died upon this. They disbelieved in the injunction given in the verse and they are the disbelievers. Shaykh Thanvi was unique in his understanding that in quantitive sense or comparative sense his controversial statement is not offensive therefore not Kufr and he was refuted by his own side. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is definitely offensive and insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even though he argues contrary to it and proof against him and his understanding are his sensless representatives aka Shaykh Naumani VS Shaykh Madani. As such he too is no less guilty of Kufr then the those who defend him. They are group of disbelievers and apostates who had disbelieved in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ and consistently insulted the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when the right course of action should have been repentance and repealing of statement.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

[MuhammedAli]

Updated.

Contradictons In Deobandi Understanding Of Hifz ul-Iman And The Fruits Of Disagreement.

Introduction:

In an effort to defend against blame of insult/disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Deobandi scholarship engaged in a massive compaign of disinformation and distortion. But the lies and compaign of deception had one missing ingredient, the truth, and a such they all contradicted and belied themselves. All who took on path of defending Shaykh Thanvi from charge of Kufr complicated the problem even more for themselves. In my own words: One Maulvi said it means this, and if it was that then it would be Kufr. And the other Maulvi said it means that, and if it was this meaning then it would be Kufr. One declared other Kafir and other declared one Kafir. They all tried their luck and all belied and resulted in refuting each other and indirectly declaring each other Kafir.

Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman:

Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Note the underlined Urdu word is aisa (i.e. like-this).

0.0 - The Quotations Taken From Deobandi Side:

This article will utilize material of debate famous debate between Islamic scholar Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Manzoor Naumani al-Deobandi. The Deobandi account of debate was been published some sixty years after the debate as: Fatah Bareilly Ka Diskash Nazara. In reality this ‘victory’ was such a crushing defeat. When truth became evident to him Shaykh Naumani couldn’t just accept it so Shaykh Naumani made excuse that he needs to refresh his Wudhu. And he didn’t return to his podium; this was due to his ‘victory’. Shaykh Naumani’s great escape was so shameless that he left his, specs, books, turban, walking-staff and even his shoes in the Masjid, and never came back, again sign of his victory. Shaykh Naumani never debated any Islamic scholar again after this crushing defeat. Prior to this debate Shaykh Naumani had some twenty-five debates but this one proved so crushing that it made him debate-pacifist. His magzine which was printed in Bareilly stopped selling due to his ‘victory’. Deobandi Madrassa which he was in-charge of had exodus moment after the debate and was eventually closed its doors again due to his ‘victory’. His Deobandi students joined Madrassa Manazar e Islam which was run by brother of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah).

0.1 - Sixty Years After The Debate Deobandis Claim Victory:

Some sixty years after (i.e. in 90’s) the Deobandis decided to publish the work of lie/deception using Muslim account [which was published in same year of debate] as template and inserted great deal in it and called it Fatah e Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara (i.e. beautiful scenary of conquest of Bareilly). Publishing it after so long itself casts doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of Deobandi account because after so long it is almost impossible to remember what happened sixty years ago. Even those who were in twenty’s at the time of writing this account would have been in their eighty’s; an age where it is difficult to remember what the person did yesterday. And which one of them can claim to accurately, in sequence, tell me what they did a week before; sixty years after; get over yourself liar, you’re not that good. Any how despite authors best effort Deobandi account is enough to prove Shaykh Naumani had no place to hide except escape. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills readers will see the truth shining in 3.0/3.4 part of this article. Note Muslim account of debate was published as; Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Mufassil Rudad (i.e. Clear Account Of God Given Victory In Debate Of Bareilly), here. Coincidently since 90’s Deobandis have also been attempting to turn debate of Jhang [between great scholar; Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi rahimullah and Deobandi Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi] as their victory. Such decisive was Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi’s defeat just like Shaykh Naumani’s defeat Shaykh Jhangvi never spoke against Muslims in his speeches instead he targetted Shias. The judges all unanimously gave verdict that Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) won the debate but 20 years after it it became a Deobandi victory. And luckily the recording of Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi’s (rahimullah) debate with Shaykh Jhangvi is still available so the truth cannot be concealed. So it seems there is concentrated effort to turn past defeats into victories by 70’s to 90’s generation of Deobandis.

0.2 - Authenticity And Accuracy Of Debate Accounts:

I do not believe Muslim account of debate is hundered percent accurate, linked above, because details cannot be remembered. At best even this account is brief and from perspective of person who witnessed it and not what was said by both parties. Meaning author gave his own insight how he viewed the debate. Deobandi account has distinction; it is free of this but its publication in 1990’s erodes its authenticity. At best the content has been improved and likely with aid of Shaykh Naumani because it he was alive uptil 1997, or maybe in light of his written works. The writer omitted the contradiction between Shaykh Naumani and his teacher Shaykh Madani which Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) brought up again and again in debate: Such as mention of aisa (i.e. like this) not being for Tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) meaning itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) and yeh (i.e. this) according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi. And according to Shaykh Madani aisa (i.e. like this) being for Tashbeeh and not being for itna (i.e. this-much). Shaykh Naumani could not own it nor he could disown position of his senior Shaykh Madani and the result was he had no answer. He was being refuted by his own side and his own teacher. This contradiction and its implications will be mainstay of this article.

1.0 – Aisa Is Of Is-Qadr, Itna, Yeh And Not Tashbeeh:

Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is reported to have said: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] “And when I refuted your saying and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages89, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Naumani also said aisa (i.e. like) can also be in meaning of yeh (i.e. this): “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani writes word aisa (means; like this) has been used in meaning of itna (means; this much) and it is not for tashbeeh (means; to compare, comparision) between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other group mentioned in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In the following Shaykh Naumani states both meanings itna/yeh: “I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani that aisa is in meaning of itna/is-qadr (both mean; this much): “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Alhasil according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi aisa (i.e. like) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi has not been used for sake of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but in meaning of yeh, itna, and is-qadr.

1.1 – Aisa For Tasbeeh, Not Of Itna And Is-Qadr:

Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani contradicts Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi and says if it was used in meaning of itna (also indirectly implies; is-qadr, because both mean same) then it would be (valid) reason for objection because it would imply prophetic knowledge is being equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. He goes on to acknowledge that word aisa (like) is for sake of tashbeeh: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] In another part of his book Shaykh Madani indicates that there is tashbeeh in prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, carnivores but it is in baaz (i.e. limited) al-Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (between Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam and Zaid, Bakr, Umar etc) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] And on same page goes on to say that anyone who deos not see the usage of aisa in meaning of tashbeeh is basicly an idiot: “Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz (i.e. some, limited) and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in his Tahgeer ul-Unwan quotes letter of un-named Deobandi Mawlvi who requested statement of Hifz ul-Iman is altered because it is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh).” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Note this statement of Shaykh Thanvi even according to his own supporter is insulting and is in sense of comparision.

1.2 – Shaykh Naumani On Consequences If Aisa For Tashbeeh:

According to Deobandi account of Munazra Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of tashbeeh because aisa is used to compare prophetic knowledge with Ghayb of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. And based on his this belief he said the following: “Muslims! Listen again; this is the Kufri statement of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” See the obvious meaning of this statement is that knowledge of Ghayb possessed by jaisa (i.e. like) of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. like) of it is also possessed by every; child, lunatic, and every animal. What can be more disrespectful of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then this? You (Shaykh Naumani) say; in this statement word jaisa (i.e. like) is not used and I agree this is the case but word aisa (i.e. like) is used and this (aisa) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Note if I say; Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is aisa (i.e. like) of donkey, is like of dog, then will there be no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)! Certainly there is (tashbeeh) and you will definitely be upset over it (i.e. usage of such words for you) even though (aisa) is without word jaisa (i.e. like) and only word aisa (i.e. like) has been used. Hence due to usage of aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman therefore certainly knowledge of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been compared (i.e. tashbeeh) with (knowledge of) animals, lunatics, and his knowledge has been equaled with them.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Page61, here.] In another part of heavily embellished and greatly distorted account of debate Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is reported to have said: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh. Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned). Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr?  Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, here] Please pay attention to the following: Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi believe aisa was not used to compare the prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds, and carnivores. Instead aisa is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) which denotes quantity and it is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani believes  if aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be insult and therefore Kufr: “This should be apparent to the honorable audience due to the discussion that between me and Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) that there is no dispute over principles and (understanding of) issue (of disrespect being Kufr). Because we all agree that insult of leader of both worlds (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) and even slight disrespect is Kufr but it is severe (type of) Kufr. Dispute is only over the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Suppose if meaning of this statement is as Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) says then it would also be Kufr according to us. And if the meaning of statement is that which I have explained then even according to Maulvi Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) Kufr would not be proven.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages69/70, here.] Alhasil point is Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe if Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was of comparision/tashbeeh, as Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and as Muslims believe then they too would deem it Kufr.

1.3 - Shaykh Naumani Contradicts His Own Shaykh Thanvi:

Shaykh Naumani wrote if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was written in sense of tashbeeh then it would be Kufr. Not surprisingly Shaykh Naumani is contraidicting his own Shaykh Thanvi by saying this. Memory of Shaykh Naumani failed him. Ten years had passed from the first publication of Hifz ul-Iman then Shaykh Darbhangi asked four questions answer to which were published as Bast al-Banan. While responding to Shaykh Darbhangi’s questions Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Naumani says it would be Kufr if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of tashbeeh and Shaykh Thanvi says even though statement is not in comparative sense but even if it was there would be nothing wrong with it because of x y z.

1.4 - Naumani, Darbhangi, Madani, And Thanvi Caught In Their Lies:

Over all, its two VS two, match. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani. Two say tashbeeh isn’t Kufr and two say tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement would be Kufr. Shaykh Naumani says aisa is in meaning of yeh, is-qadr/itna. Meaning of aisa as itna Shaykh Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani. And against these two is Shaykh Madani who says it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna because if there was itna then there would be equality in quantity of prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants; which would make Shaykh Thanvi’s statement Kufr. In over-all Shaykh Thanvi has two positions, aisa in meaning of itna, evident from his example of Allah is aisa Raziq. And he holds to position even in tashbeeh sense the statement would not be Kufr. In other words Shaykh Thanvi believes there is no possibility of Kufr how ever the statement is understood; in sense of quantity or tashbeeh; there is no Kufr. In tashbeeh sense Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by his tag team; Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi. In sense of quantity Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by Shaykh Madani. And Shaykh Madani’s position is refuted by Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi reasoning. And position of Shaykh Naumani/Darbhangi justly is refuted by Shaykh Madani. In summary we witness a little royal jungle rumble between the Maulvis of Deobandism on same statement.

1.5 - The Verdict On Aisa, Itna, Is-qadr, Yeh, And Tashbeeh:

Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is in meaning of itna/is-qadr and yeh therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement was for sake of comparision then it would be Kufr. And Shaykh Madani believes statement is in meaning of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of itna/is-qadr it would be Kufr. Alhasil Shaykh Darbhangi/Naumani VS Madani; both groups consider other party’s interpretation as Kufr. It would have helped Islamic cause greatly if both parties of Deobandis had declared each other Kafir for holding to Kufri understanding of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement because then Muslims wouldn’t have been accused of saying both parties are Kafir. And we the Muslims say to both of them: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi you both are correct in your understanding; tashbeeh is Kufr. And Shaykh Madani you’re also correct; statement of Hifz ul-Iman in meaning of itna (or is-qadr) is Kufr. The Islamic verdict is that there is no valid interpretation of controversial and Kufri statement; of tashbeeh is Kufr and of itna/is-qard and yeh is Kufr. Islamic position, inlcuding Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimulllah alayhi ta’ala) and Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), with regards to Hifz ul-Iman has always been; it is Kufr and there is no valid interpretation which can save Shaykh Thanvi from Kufr accept repentence.

2.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement And Its Interpretations:

“If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi agreed upon itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) meaning and Shaykh Naumani ascribed to an additional meaning of yeh (i.e. this). And both of these possibilities have been put into context of Shaykh Thanvi’s : (i) “… what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” (ii) In light of Shaykh Naumani’s aisa meaning yeh the controversial statement would read: “… what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); yeh (i.e. this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The objective was to remove natural meaning of Tashbeeh, or remove obvious Tashbeeh from Shaykh Thanvi and make it difficult for the readers to see tashbeeh in the statement.

2.1 - Claim Of No Tashbeeh In Itna/Is-Qadr Refuted:

Shaykh Thanvi statement goes like: “… a) if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); b) Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In the underlined part of sentence a he is discussing prophetic Ghayb. Second underlined sentence b Shaykh connected it with a via usage of aisa (i.e. like-this). In simple words; Shaykh Thanvi enquires what is so unique about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge of Ghayb, knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr: “… aisa knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” It means he has compared the quantity of prophetic knowledge in category of baaz with the mentioned (i.e. Zayid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants) and has come to conclusion through comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) of quantity of Ghuyub; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the mentioned creations both have baaz knowledge of Ghayb and one party is no better then other. Therefore without Tashbeeh he could not have come to mentioned conclusion and would not have concluded in the following words: “(If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” A point of principle must be remembered: To negate or to establish uniqueness/speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb; comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) between the Ghuyub of mentioned beings in statement of Hifz ul-iman and Ghuyub  known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has to be made. And this comparision must be regarding types of Ghuyub known and of quantity of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) and beings mentioned in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Even if reader is unable to percieve it the stated principle, underlined, should make it easy for the reader to accept there is Tashbeeh in itna and is-qadr in the light of fact; Shaykh Thanvi negated uniqueness of prophetic of Ghayb.

2.2 - For Argument Sake: There Is No Tashbeeh In Itna And Is-Qadr:

According to Islamic scholarship of subcontinent Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is statement of Tashbeeh and Shaykh Madani the Khalifah of Shaykh Thanvi believes this as well. Yet for this little exercise readers should disregard the notion of Tashbeeh and read aisa in sense of itna without Tashbeeh. Shaykh wrote: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The statement can be understood in two ways, aisa is referring to baaz, therefore statement: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Also aisa can also be pointing toward prophetic knowledge and this is best and natural understanding of controversial statement. In this context the statement would read: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge being considered for Prophet is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …”  If aisa was hint toward baaz, or hint toward prophetic-Ghayb; in both cases contextually baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of mentioned creations is being equaled in quantity of baaz. Aisa in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr makes it this much more clear that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is equalling quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. And this why Shaykh Madani said aisa is not in meaning of itna but in meaning of Tashbeeh. Even without Tashbeeh meaning of Aisa there is Kufr in the statement because Itna’s quantity is being compared.

3.3 - Mother Of Righteous Muslims And Case Of Implied Tashbeeh:

Mother of righteous believers took offense when mention of women was made amongst those which invalidate prayer: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493) “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486) Note even though it was just a mention of women, dogs, and donkeys being cause of invalidating prayers she took exception to it. The reason is obvious; the tashbeeh was implied due to women being mentioned in list of animals; dogs and donkeys. She had a very refined and comprehensive understanding of tashbeeh therefore she noted the logical implication of being mentioned in list of unclean animals. If an bad-ikhlaq (i.e. ill-mannered) person like our Shaykh Madani says: All humans are children of Adam (alayhis salam) therefore brothers/sisters. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi, the cursed Firawn, the Dajjal, Abu Jahl, Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani, Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi and others like them are brothers. A person with finely tuned sense of manners will understand that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by being mentioned in the list of worst human beings known to a Muslim. In this context lets visit the statement of Shaykh Thanvi again: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. this-much, this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In this statement at the very least there is argument for Tashbeeh due to use of aisa (i.e. like). And proof of aisa in the statement being used for Tashbeeh is that Shaykh Madani took it in sense of Tashbeeh. What would be the reaction of Umm ul-Momineen (radiallah ta’ala anhu) if she read this statement of Shaykh Thanvi? Would she give him good-news of being righteous Muslim or a disbeliever? Anyone with with love and respect and refined manners and is still upon Fitrah (i.e. pure state) will understand why this statement of Shaykh Thanvi is disrespectful.

4.0 - Aisa In Meaning Of Tashbeeh Is Kufr And Example From Shaykh Naumani:

If aisa was in comparative meaning as Shaykh Madani said; aisa is for Tashbeeh. In this context Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); comparatively aisa Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] According to Shaykh Madani statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in comparative meaning on its natural meaning not in context of itna/is-qadr, or yeh. And even Shaykh Naumani agrees it is but not in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in context of his self and his Shaykh Thanvi.

4.1 - Shaykh Naumani Bites Trap Set By Mawlana Sardar Ahmad:

Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) knew Shaykh Naumani would not accept and tolerate if he and Shaykh Thanvi are insulted/disrespected using words similar to what Shaykh Thanvi used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So he goes on to say: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr?  Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?  [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] After this Shaykh Naumani responds to Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) with following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] He said the same in number of other places. Please note when Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge was compared to dog/donkey’s Shaykh Naumani tactfully responed to insult/disrespect by making the same statement about Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and just as Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) predicted Shaykh Naumani could not tolerate his Shaykh and him being insulted and resorted insulting Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) but in process revealed the truth that aisa without jaisa can be insulting too. Despite knowing the truth about aisa’s usage in sentences likes Mawlana Sardar Ahmad employed and Shaykh Thanvi wrote; Shaykh Naumani could not extend this knowledge for honour Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and defended Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Question arises why would Shaykh Naumani not take the same route in regards to a statement which apparently insults/disrespects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Answer is very simple; he had self respect and had love and respect for Shaykh Thanvi. And had no love or respect for the last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

5.0 - Use Of Ra’ee’ In Hadith By Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam):

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) served as guardian/protector of sheep according to following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "Allah did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep." His companions asked him, "Did you do the same?" The Prophet replied, "Yes, I used to shepherd the sheep of the people of Mecca for some Qirats." [Ref: Bukhari, B36, H463] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said; ruler, men, women, slaves are ‘ra’ee’ (i.e. shepherds) in meaning guide and guardian in the following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:The Messenger of Allah as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.” [Ref: Abu Dawood,  B19, H2922] And in this context son calling his father, or subject referring to his king as ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd, our guardian, our protector) isn’t offensive or insulting.

5.1 - Rai’na Distorted By Jews To Ra’eena:

When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) use to deliver speech companions; if a companion missed something due too far, or someone caughed something was missed, or due to not having capacity to understand what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, the companions would say ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us). And depending upon the circumstance Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) either will repeat what he said or rephrase it so it is accessible for all intellect levels. If the Jews were in the gathering they would distort the word ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and pronounce it as; ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our sheperd). And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions their distortion in the following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say; “We hear and disobey” - and they say; “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say; “ra'eena” (i.e. our shepherd) distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] Calling someone shepherd was, and even remains to this day way negating/discrediting literacy of someone. Due to Jews distorting the word to insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Note the instruction is to believers to not to use word rai’na because it was used by the Jews to disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggests word ‘undhurna’ (i.e. look upon us) which the Jews could not distort to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cryptively. Alhasil this verse prohibits usage of words/sentences which are perfectly fine but can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Rule of Islamic law is; if something is prohibited in lesser degree anything greater then the least is also forbidden. Therefore it would stand to reason, by default, words/sentences which are insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are also prohibited and the threat of punishment for disbelievers is inclusive of insulters.

5.2 - Shaykh Thanvi  In Light Verse Of Rai’na And Undhurna:

The companions used ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and Jews distorted it and used ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd). So one pronounciation was absolutely fine [because both are written absolutely same] and other was Kufr. Yet none of the companions are on the record for saying or justifying their usage through linguistical usage of ‘rai’na’ or even blaming Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for not knowing how they used it. Instead they realized the situation and left it for better suggestion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The right course of action as indicated by verse was to abandon the controversial statement after Shaykh Thanvi was informed. Not present taweel (i.e. interpretation) in his defence, repeal it, and repent because his statement was evidently insulting. Instead he resorted to denial and presented taweel of his statement and others from his side followed his evil Sunnah: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And in this sense Shaykh Thanvi and those who followed him are all equales.

5.3 - Judgement Regarding Statement And Interpretation Of Others:

According to Shaykh Naumani’s claim aisa in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr and in meaning of yeh and not for tashbeeh because in sense of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. According to Shaykh Madani it is to be understood in sense of tashbeeh and not in meaning of itna/is-qadr because it would be Kufr according to his understanding if it was in meaning of itna. Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani both hold to position; statement means this and if it was in this meaning it would be Kufr. Please note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] And the verse gives following meaning; do not use words which insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and which can be misconstrued to insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihiw as’sallam) but use words which are not insulting and which cannot be misconstrued to insult. In light of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani should have refrained from taweel of Shaykh Thanvi’s because by their own acknowledgment one meaning is insulting and therefore Kufr. And those who use insulting statements or statements which can be misconstrued to insult even after the prohibition of it has been made have been declared Kafirs and threatened with punishment: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Or the verse could also be interpreted to mean: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who disblieve in the command of verse) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Both interpretations boil down to Kufr; of those who insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or those who disbelieve in the order given in the verse. And implications of the verse for Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Darbhangi is that they are disbelievers and apostates. All those who believe and defend statement of Hifz ul-Iman after understanding it they are to be deemed Murtadeen (i.e. apostates) and Kafirs (i.e. disbeleivers) providing all avenues prior to Takfir have been exhausted.

Conclusion:

Shaykh Naumani understands aisa (i.e. like this) to mean yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi understand the usage of aisa to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much). And both negate usage of aisa in sense of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) because Shaykh Naumani considers use of aisa in sense of tashbeeh to be Kufr. In other words; according to Shaykh Naumani, if prophetic knowledge was being compared with every days Joe’s, lunatics, infants, with knowledge of animals then there would be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore verdict of Kufr. Shaykh Thanvi on other hand states it is in quantitive sense even if it was in comparative sense it wouldn’t be Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand believes statement was in comparative sense if it was in quantative sense then it would have been offensive. And Shaykh Thanvi agrees with him that in comparative sense it isn’t offensive but also believes it is not offensive in quantitive sense either. Understanding of Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Madani are two taweels of Shaykh Thanvi; one in quantitive sense, and other of comparative sense; which each side took from Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan while unknowingly considering his other taweel to be offensive. Shaykh Thanvi gets owned by his own representatives because both side of his followers consider one of his accepted version to be offensive. Therefore both positions of Shaykh Thanvi are offensive and Kufr.  And the grand act of providence is that Shaykh Naumani party VS Shaykh Madani essentially refute each other. In other words Shaykh Naumani’s understanding of itna/ is-qadr has been argued to be offensive by Shaykh Madani because he said it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna. And Shaykh Madani’s position of tashbeeh has been proven wrong by Shaykh Naumani because of his reasoning that comparative rendering would be offensive and quantitive is not. Revealing that if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was understood in light of itna/is-qadr, or yeh, or tashbeeh it is offensive and Kufr. The established contradiction between the Deobandi Maulvis will be enough for an intelligent person to realise; their accounts don’t match because both sides of Deobandism are lieing. And a believer who fears his Lord and loves the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take this contradiction as proof deception and lies being told by their scholarship to cover-up Shaykh Thanvi’s Kufr. It is important to note that Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) during the debate; as an act of strategy of war against enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) uttered following words about knowledge of Shaykh Naumani and his Shaykh Thanvi: “Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s.” It was then that Shaykh Naumani took offence citing tashbeeh the reason of his understanding. And this establishes the well known and established fact; Deobandis love/respect their own more then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Considering that one group considers A taweel to be insulting/Kufr and B to be perfectly in agreement with Shari’a. And the other considers A taweel to be perfectly justifiable in Shari’ah and B to be Kufr; in this context it can be said there is concensus that statement is insulting/Kufr in Deobandi scholarship. And it also can be said that there isn’t agreement on its Kufr. Negation of Kufr is explicitly stated and is intended objective and confirmation of statement being Kufr is unintended result of lies and deception. The understanding of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ made it obligatory for those who considered at least one taweel of Shaykh Thanvi to be of Kufr to abandon their efforts yet they persisted and died upon this. They disbelieved in the injunction given in the verse and they are the disbelievers. Shaykh Thanvi was unique in his understanding that in quantitive sense or comparative sense his controversial statement is not offensive therefore not Kufr and he was refuted by his own side. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is definitely offensive and insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even though he argues contrary to it and proof against him and his understanding are his sensless representatives aka Shaykh Naumani VS Shaykh Madani. As such he too is no less guilty of Kufr then the those who defend him. They are group of disbelievers and apostates who had disbelieved in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ and consistently insulted the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when the right course of action should have been repentance and repealing of statement.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Edited 15 جولائی 2018 by MuhammedAli