Some Kufr Penned By Ismail Dehalvi.

[MuhammedAli]

FiftyFour - Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi On Distractions In Prayers:

Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi whom the Wahhabis of subcontinent and Deobandis consider as their major scholar. Even Hanbali Wahhabi publishers in Riyadh published his Taqwiyat Ul Iman in English and on basis of this I assume they are appreciate his views. Ismail Dehalvi wrote a book, Sirat e Mustaqeem and in it while discussing polluting thoughts which effect purity of Salah Ismail Dehalvi wrote; if thought of engaging an illegal sexual intercourse (i.e. Zina) during Salah enters into ones [heart/mind] it would be better to think of having sexual intercourse with his own wife. He continued - [During Salah] to direct effort [in imagination] toward Shaykh, or Saliheen like him, even if it is honourable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey, here: "Rather then to think of adultery it is better to think of having with your own wife. and Shaykh or pious elders like them to concentrate on them or even on Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in prayers is worse then being drowned in thoughts of your bull or donkey." [Ref: Sirat e Mustaqeem, page 118, here. another version page 118, here.] He also justified his this statement saying; thoughts of respectables during Salah attach to ones heart and takes one toward Shirk – because respect of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah is Shirk. Where as the thoughts of bull/donkey do not cling to heart. And thoughts of ghayr (i.e. others) in prayers with respect take one toward Shirk. He went on to recommend the ‘cure’ of having such Waswas (i.e. Urdu; waswasa). He states, in Zuhr prayers if one had the waswasa of Hadhoor (i.e.Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in all Rakats, then he should perform sixteen Rakat to as an act of atonement. And he states, if ‘waswasa’ of [Hadhoor sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam] was in only few Rakats then he should atone for it by performing four Rakat. His emphasis is that in atonement Rakats one should completely free himself from the ‘waswasa’ of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Earlier I stated I did not defend these statements of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. The reason was, I personally had bone to pick with what he wrote. Even though I did not initially agree with orthodox Muslims; this statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is disrespectful and insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but I felt this statement did not correctly represent Islamic teaching.

Part One: Firstly, it is/was understandable for him to encourage people to focus and direct your attention toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in prayers. But instructing the Muslims away from thoughts of illegal intercourse, and then directing them to mind with ones own wife was/is not correct, nor it was, or is better, both are against the teaching of Islam. He instructed the Muslims to direct the attention away from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and directed them to think of their bull/donkey. Was this the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it was not! Did he say when you think of committing greater sin in Salah then think of lesser one? Or did he say when you are about to commit major sin instead commit a minor sin? I had to be fair to my self and soul and say the truth, not by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Did not Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teach us method of purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he did indeed! Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has taught that when performing Salah imagine you can see Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and if you cannot do this then imagine he can see you. Knowing that you are in presence of your Lord, your Creator, and knowing that he can observe you, will bring the humility, and sincerity, and purity in Salah. Minds/Hearts of men are so easily influenced by Iblees, he wispers into hearts/minds of men distractions. What can be greater distraction from purifying worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then to get entangled in web of - think of lesser evil when Iblees wispers into your heart/mind a greater evil. More you try to think of lesser sins to get away from greater sins in your Salah the more you have entangled your self. Thinking of Zina, think of with wife, oops! But thinking of having with wife in Salah is not good so think of lesser one. Each time you think of lesser one, you will aim for another the lesser one, and your lessers will not finish but your Salah will. You have destroyed your Salah following the suggestion of Iblees. Instead of purifying your Salah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you have spent the entire time chasing the lesser evil then the one Iblees has planted in your mind/heart. And I remembered the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) whosoever introduces into matter of religion which is not part of it is to be rejected [or will have it rejected]. I considered Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s advice/teaching to be [reprehensible] innovation and something which takes to hell fire.

Part Two: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated to atone for a Rakat in which ‘waswasa’ of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) one has to peform four Rakat. And if one has waswasa of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in entire Zuhr prayer he is to perform sixteen Rakat to atone for this offense. I found this also unacceptable because there was no precident in teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) where he himself or instructed his companions performed four Rakat to atone for lapse in a single Rakat. We only find that he performed Sajdah of Sahw (i.e. prostration of forgetfulness) if he made mistake and instructed his companions the very same. This teaching of performing four Rakat for each Rakat as an atonement is an innovation into religion of Islam which has no foundation it Islam.

Part Three: It was these two reasons on basis of which I did not defend the Sirat e Mustaqeem statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. But I have to point out that I did not consider him to be a Mubtadi (i.e. Innovator) rather excused his innovations under the pretext that he made a Ijtihadi mistake and he will be rewarded and excused.

Part Four: Coming to issue of orthodox Muslims objecting on the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated instead of engaging in thoughts of Zina [while performing Salah] one should think of sexual intercourse with his wife. And in the following sentenceMaulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated during Salah to direct focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in images/thoughts of your bull and donkey. If Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi was following the principle, instead of greater sin engage in lesser sin, then he considered directing focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a greater sin then focusing toward bull/donkey. If Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi was upon the principle, instead of sinful thoughts direct focus toward blameless thoughts, then he considered directing focus toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sinful and deemed engaging in mind with wife and thinking of your bull/donkey as blameless. In first case, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of stating thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse sin then sin of thinking about bull/donkey. In the second case, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of stating; thinking of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is sinful but thinking of donkey/bull, or with wife isn’t.

Part Five: I read many Taweels, and many excuses presented in defence of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi, but I did not accept any of them. Firstly, I was aware of Hadith of Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) in which she acted angrily when a Sahabi mentioned that if a dog, donkey, and a woman passes infront of person performing prayers, then prayer is invalidated. She said angrily, you have compared us (i.e. women) to dogs and donkeys, here. The Sahabi did not compare the women to dogs/donkeys he only stated they and women invalidate prayers if they pass infront of one who is performing prayers. Yet she took offence because being mentioned with the dogs, donkeys was offensive in her judgment. I thought and asked myself, how would she react to statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi? Would she say it is all Halal and pure Tawheed or order the murder of one who wrote this? Another incident in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was distributing gold alloy to leaders of Najd. Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi shouted: Be just O Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) sought permission to kill him for insinuating that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not distribute gold alloy justly, here. In the other Hadith Khalid bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) also sought permission to kill him, here. Considering the delicate and fine nature of respect, and love companions had for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) I concluded if any of them ever heard these words uttered which Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi had written they surely would kill him for insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as stated: “And when it is said to them [the Munafiqeen]: Believe as the people [of firm faith, companions] believe. They say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.” [Ref: 2:13] Based on instructions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I came to believe what the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have come to believe. Meaning I believed, the statement fo Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is indeed insulting and insulting/disrespectful enough to warrant his murder – warranted on basis of his Kufr and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Part Six: Later on I did dwelve into polemical side of the debate to further my knowledge on the topic. I want to adress something important which the Deobandis argue in defence of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi. They say he said, apni himmat ko laga dena behal ya gadday ki soorat mein mustaghrik honay say bura heh.[58] He did not say, apnay khiyal (i.e. thought) ko laga dena behal ya gadday ki soorat mein mustaghrik honay say bura heh, therefore your saying, that he said, thought of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then drowning in image of your bull or donkey, is misrepresentation and distortion of what he actually wrote. Muslims respond to Deobandis, sarf (i.e. exherting) of  himmat (i.e. effort), or one exherting own himmat (i.e. effort), will be in imagination hence it is part of thoughts. Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is talking about mental exhertion and it is composed of nothing but thoughts. While explaning his position why one should not direct effort Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi explains, Shaykh’s thoughts attach themselves to ones heart due to respect and greatness [of Shaykh]. Therefore even Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has confirmed correlation between, [Urdu;] himmat lagana, or [Farsi;] sarf e himmat to thought and thinking – all of which are mental activities. In other words, one will exhert mentaly to avoid thinking about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and will have to exhert mentaly to think of his bull/donkey. Which ever direction one chooses to direct his focus all will be a thought process, a process of khiyal. Hence to argue that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi did not state, khiyal (i.e. thought) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then of donkey/bull in Salah, is based on ignorance of how a normal human being with sound mind will exhert mental effort – in thoughts. He did mean, in khiyal exherting effort to think of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then imersing in images of your own donkey/bull. Even though simple form of Ismail Dehalvis intended meaning is conveyed but even if the full details are disclosed even then insult/disrespect of the statement is not removed. And to sample the reality of this please refer to Farsi or Urdu version of Sirat e Mustaqeem.

Part Seven: Lastly, during the last days of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was leading the prayers and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) entered from his room into Masjid Nabvi. And after persistently being alarmed by companions, he retreated back until he was being lead by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he was leading the rest of companions. When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) entered the entire focus of congregation was toward informing Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu)  of presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In another Hadith it is stated that companions used to look at the face of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in third/fourth Rakat  to see if he is reciting something. One companion was asked how do you know that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recited a supplication in third/fourth Rakat. The companion replied looked from corner of my eye and I saw his beard move. Did they not think; we must perserve Tawheed, directing our attention toward presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take us toward Shirk? Or did they think or say, to concentrate toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Salah is worse then immersing yourself in images of your donkey or bull? They knew during Salah we the companions with utmost love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam),  and with our hearts and minds filled with love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), we invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salwat: O Allah send blessings upon Muhammad and on the Aal (i.e. family and followers) of Muhammad. How could they utter or even contemplate such Kufr which Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote? How could the thought of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not come with love and respect? And thoughts of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will enter our hearts and minds while reciting Salawat then should we think of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with hate and disrespect? Or should we direct attention toward our bull/donkey? What about Tashahud – Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and His mercy and His blessings? Should we not focus toward our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when we are adressing him? Lunatics, have you lost your sense? We adress Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with love and respect, and we think of him with love and with respect, and then we adress him with: Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and His mercy, and His blessings. You be to your sexual fantasies and imersing in thoughts of donkeys/bulls in Salah and me to Islam.

Part Eight: There was no need for Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi to state tawajah toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is worse then thinking of your bull/donkey. He could have easily expressed that according to his form of Wahhabism, respect of anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah takes one toward Shirk hence effort should be made to not to focus attention toward any creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with love, or respect. The Farsi/Urdu languages are very well developed and could have allowed him to express his position without comparative terms if he chose to do so. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi said, when Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi presented Taqwiyatul Iman to his co-religionists he stated that, he has used harsh [and I M.Ali.R say, disrespectful] language but people will fight over it and sort themselves out, here. This indicates that Mualvi Ismail Dehalvi was aware; his style of writing is offensive and disrespectful but hoped after strife everything will settle. From this I gather Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi deliberately used deragotry language saying , tawajah toward righteous Muslims as well as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was stated to be worse then imersing your self in thoughts of your bull and donkey. Note Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s comparative style, due to y the x is worse then z, is constant in both books. He was aware of harsh/disprespectful language and also was aware of the strife he would cause by adopting such style of writing but did not rectify it nor there is authenticated report of his repentence. As a result of his Taqwiyatul Iman and Sirat e Mustaqeem there was uproar amongst the Muslims of subcontinent and this strife resulted in formation of two distinct groups, Muslims who opposed Ismail Dehalvi and Muslims who supported and deffended his writtings and continue to do so. The first became known as Ahle Sunnat [in other words orthodox Muslims] and the second became known as Deobandi and Ahle Hadith [a non-conformist Wahhabi sect]. And the fight/strife between these factions has only got worse as time has progressed.

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

Part One: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “And know/believe [with firm] conviction every creation may he be great (i.e. bara) or lowly (i.e. chota) compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiayatul Iman, page 35, Urdu] To begin with I had questioned: Where is the proof that – every creation is more disgraced then cobbler? Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say this or did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teach this? There is no proof for this teaching of Ismail Dehalvi. In fact it is a disrespectful innovation.

Part Two: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote, har makhlooq (i.e. every creation), this is inclusive of all creation, including Prophets, companions, and righteous of Ummah. So according to him all Prophets and their followers are more disgraced then a cham’mar (i.e. cobbler). Note how Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has constructed the sentence. According to construction of sentence, compared to majestay and honour of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the cobbler has some worth, but the Prophets, including our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions are worthless. The construction of the sentence by Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is similar to following: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is worse in his Kufr then Firawn. Implications of both statements is; (i) chammar is better in position of honour, (ii) and Firawn is lesser in Kufr, then the mentioned in both sentences.

Part three: As mentioned in the sentence Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi stated ‘every creation’ and therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and his companions are said to be more disgraced then a cobbler. In this context I asked three questions: (i) Is Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) more zaleel (i.e. disgraced) then a cobbler? (ii) Is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)) zaleel compared to Allah? (iii) Is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) more zaleel then cobbler compared to Allah and is the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi valid? Has I understood and understand – the answers to first two questions are fundamental to answer the last question in affirmation. If these two questions are answered with affirmation then the answer for the last question is naturally, yes! Meaning; if he was more disgraced then cobbler, and disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then naturally for the third/finale question would be: Yes he is more disgraced then a cobbler compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! No sane Muslims would ever affirm Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is more disgraced then a cobbler. Suppose if someone negates the first question, affirms the second question, then he would believe: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This also is rejection of Ismail Dehalvis statement. Now coming to what person would believe – how does he know Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), did he read it in Quran, or Ahadith, or did he invent it? Answer, it is neither in Quran nor in books of Ahadith, it is an innovation, and Kufria innovation. Alhasil, there are two fundamental components [both indicated in first two questions] in Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi’s sentence and both have to be true for the statement of Ismail Dehalvi to be valid. This disproves the statement of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi but also establishes Rather that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was said to be more disgraced then a cobbler as well as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – because fundamental contruction of sentence was based on two points: (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was more disgraced then cobbler, (ii) and he is disgraced compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is due to this that I believe Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi is guilty of tripple Kufr in one statement alone.

Part Four: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (al azza) will expel therefrom the meaner (a'zilla)." But izza (honour) belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.” [Ref: 63:8] If one compares the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) toAllah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), he is with Izza (i.e. honour, dignity). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shahid and so is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Shahid. To say compared to Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) station of Shahid Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no station of Shahid – it would be Kufr because a station of Shahid has been affirmed in textually of Quran. Point is, Allah and his beloved Prophet both can be Shahid and have Izzat (i.e. honour) – how ever limited the Shahid/Izza of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) maybe compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Our love and respect for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) should not exceed the limits of Tawheed – meaning we should not elevate him to status of an Ilah and we should not worship him because such honour and such respect only belongs to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). So even in comparative terms between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), the Izza of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot and should not be denied because it has been textually confirmed. Or to say, compared to seeing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is blind. This is going against what is established, one can say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in comparision to the Khaliq (i.e. Creator) has limited and restricted sight but cannot say, he is blind without warranting Kufr. One can say, in comparision to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the honour/dignity of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has limited/resctricted Izza [due to prohibition of elevating him to status of an Ilah] but cannot completely deny it or say he is Zaleel, without warranting Kufr. Unlimited/Unrestricted Izza is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because all honour is of Him and only He has the right/honour to be worshipped with ultimate acts of honour/respect – worship.

Part Five: Supporters of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi argue that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi did not mean every creation inclusive of Prophets and their righteous followers. So I would like to present a part of what Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “Every person may he be great (i.e. bara) or lowly (i.e. chota), may he be Prophet (i.e. Nabi) or a saint (i.e.Wali) …” [Taqwiyatul Iman, Maktaba Khalil, Page 75] Note here Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi used words ‘bara’ (i.e. great) and ‘chota’ (i.e. lowly), and right after it used word Nabi and Wali. This indicates great person in his terminology is Prophet and lowly is a Wali. Islamicly speaking the Prophets are superior to Awliyah and Awliyah are lower in rank then Prophets. Therefore Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi counted Prophets amongst great (i.e. baray) in rank and righteous believers are lower in rank therefore they are stated to be lowly (i.e. chotay). In light of this Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi specificly targetted Prophets and Awliyah when he said compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are more disgraced then a cobbler. In another part of his book he actually defines who is included in ‘bara’ (i.e. great) and ‘chota’ (i.e. lowly). He states: “Meaning, all humans are brothers of each other. One who is bara buzurq (i.e. great personality) that one is older/great brother. Therefore respect him like an older brother. And Malik of all is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), worship is due to him. From this Hadith we learn that, Awliyah (i.e. saints), Ambiyah (i.e. Prophets), Imams and sons of Imams, and spiritual guides (i.e. Peer) and matyrs (i.e. Shaheed). Meaning all people beloved/near to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are human, and humble humans, and our brothers, but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted them bara’ee (i.e. greatness), therefore they are our baray (i.e. elder/great) brothers. We have been instructed to obey their instructions. We are their chotay (i.e. younger/minor) therefore they should be respected like human beings.” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Page 80] This establishes absolutely clearly that Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi considered the Prophets and righteous of Ummah amongst the baray. Once he explicitly stated who the baray and chotay are according to him and then hinted at what he has stated by using words bara/baray and chota/chotay. He used these words as indicators so readers of his book can relate to his position of who baray/chotay are when they study the content of his book. Alhasil he considered the Prophets and righeous followers of the Prophets, including Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions, as more disgraced then a cobbler.

Part Six: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated, honour (i.e. Izza) is for Allah and for the Messenger and righteous believers, here: “They say, "If we return to Medina, surely the more honourable (al azza) will expel therefrom the meaner (a'zilla)." But izza (honour) belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.” [Ref: 63:8] Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) included Himself, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and righteous believers amongst the people of honour/dignity. The hypocrites have not been mentioned and this exclusion indicates they are disgraced (i.e. Zaleel). And therefore to say every creation is Zaleel - which is inclusive of all Prophets, righteous followers of Prophets – means one is indicrectly labelling them has hypocrites, and it is Kufr.

Part Seven: In religion of Islam honour/dignity is connected with piety. So one maybe a chammar (i.e. cobbler) by profession but if he adhere to pillars of Islam and acts on good and abstains from prohibitions then such a cobbler is from righteous believers and honourable.  Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi has statement indicates he considers all cobblers as disgraced.

Part Eight: Also note the basic structure of the following statement Ismail Dehalvi is same as the one discussed in this section: "Allah's exalted glory is such that all Prophets and friend of Allah infront of Him are less then speck of nothingness." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 74, urdu] And I leave it to readers to understand his statement.

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

Part One: Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi quoted Hadith from Mishqat in which a Sahabi seeks permission to prostrate to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) questioned the companions will you prostrate to my grave when you pass by it? The companion responds he will not prostrate to his grave and Prophet said then don’t prostrate to me now. On this Hadith Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi deduces; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is actually saying: "Meaning, I will one day die (and) disintegrate into dust (after decay) ." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] During my Deobandi days I had summed this as an error of Ijtihad. After properly studying the temperament of Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi – he was a michief maker and disrespectful (i.e. Gustakh) individual. Especially when he himself is reported to have said, I have used harsh language at times but after strife people will sort themselves out, here. Now I am of opinion this had nothing to do with Ijtihad, or mistake but this was deliberate attempt to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by putting words into mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for sake of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tazleel (i.e. humiliation). Even the children who have never attended a Madrassa know that Prophets are alive in their graves and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has forbidden the earth to decompose their bodies. My understanding is that this knowledge is and was elementary, and Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi deliberately chose to write this to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note he wrote; Prophet said, ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In Urdu words, khaq mein milna, mitti mein mil jana, mitti mein milna, are always used in meaning of, destroying something in such a fashion that it leaves no distinguishable sign between soil and the item destroyed. And such destruction with the usage of word mitti mein milna is always associated with negative conotations of dishonour, disgrace, and humiliation. If someone said, ham nay ussay itna mara kay ussay mitti mein mala deeya, it would mean we beat him so much that we made him worthless [like dust]. Or, utterly humiliated him with excessive beatings. In every such usage, meaning of humiliation and disgrace is part of it. Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi was also familiar with how typically this word was used. Despite this he attributed the words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: ‘mein bi ek din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon.’ In other words Ismail Dehalvi wrote that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about himself; I will one day die become dust. Neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said this nor has a companion uttered such blasphemous words. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has honoured Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with life in his grave a more real life then earthly life, bestowed upon him the life of paradise.

Part Two: Note, Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi attributed these words to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and these words were his understanding and belief. Otherwise there was no reason for him to deduce/attribute if he did not believe the following for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) -: "Meaning, I will one day die (and) disintegrate into dust (after decay) ." [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, page 81, Urdu] O Muslims! I ask you: Will you anounce, or believe, due to your love/respect for your mother, or father, or daughter, or sister, or brother, or son, that she/he has died, and the body has decomposed, and has turned dust? Will your heart allow you to utter it? How could a Muslim/Momin utter and believe that the body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has turned to dust [due to decomposition]? When I realised the implications of what Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi had written, and realised what he believed, and what he is promoting by writing this book, I was stunned. I recited Shahadah again and again affirming my faith in Islam until I felt I am a Muslim. I repented and sought forgiveness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for saying good and praising Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi.

Part Three: Muslim scholars have routinely criticised Maulvi Ismail Dehalvi for his lack of good manners when adressing Prophets, and righteous scholars of Ummah. And the insults of Taqwiyatul Iman directed to Prophets and righteous men of Ummah are obvious to anyone with mustard worth of Iman in their heart. Due to the obvious disrespectful and insulting nature of Ismail Dehalvi’s statements in Taqwiyatul Iman his modern supporters have begun altering statements of Taqwiyatul Iman. And the statement in being objected in discussion is one of such statements which have been altered to conform to accepted belief and to remove disrespectful wording of sentence attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Proof of this can be found, here. Darul Kutub publishers altered the statement to: “Meaning, at least one day I will too die and get into lap of grave to sleep.” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Page 78, Urdu] This is proof of disrespectful nature of the statement. Had the statement been innocent and blameless there was no need for it to be altered.

Part Four: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said that anyone who attributes to him deliberately something which he has not said such a person can occupy his place in hell, here. Anyone who attributes something which he has not stated is in hell fire. Where would he be who attributes to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a statement in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is saying something which is belittling him? Such a person is in the deepest part of hell among the munafiqeen who have disbelieved in Islam after believing in it.

Edited 22 نومبر 2023 by MuhammedAli