Kufr In Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman.

[MuhammedAli]

Controversial And Kufria Statements:

Question: “A certain individual, Zayd, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … And says Ilm Al-Ghayb is of two types: bil-Zaat [of one’s ownself]; in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb, none else. And ba-wasta [through means, alternative; bil-Ardh; granted by another] and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] Answer: “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 (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special 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 Thanvi is guilty of two crimes:

ia) He stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no distinction/merit above when compared to Tom, Dick, Harry, infants, lunatics, animal, and insects. Why? Because according to Shaykh Thanvi Prophet’s Ghayb is same as them: “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge …” Even IF the Ghayb was same in quantity there is no justification to say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not better than these ... He could have said his knowledge is not better than these … instead he said prophet is not better than these …  He likened Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to animals, infants, lunatics … and this is insult hurled at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallma).

 ib) To question what is so special about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) … in his statement indicates Shaykh Thanvi believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special/unique in comparison to lunatics, infants, animals, insects … This is insult … hey Deobandi there is nothing special about you … hey deobandi what is special about you … you’re like an infant, insect, lunatic, animal, donkey, Khanzir … see there is no insult of Deobandi in this … look I am not insulting Shaykh Thanvi … You know how to read Quran … what is so special about you Shaykh Thanvi … even nursery kids can read it, mentally handicapped can read the Quran … sarcasm. Anyone sane would realize that nursery kid might be able to recite Quran, but Shaykh Thanvi could have more beautifying voice, recite proper rules of Tajweed, Thanvi knows Tafsir better than kid … all these would mean Shaykh Thanvi would better than and unique compared to nursery kids and mentally challenged.

iia) Shaykh Thanvi’s second crime is that he believed Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is same as animals, insects, lunatics, and children in quantity, quality, and types. And this is why he mentioned them to negate speciality/uniqueness and better-ness of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… what is so unique/special 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 …” Anyone ounce of sense would know that no Ghayb is known to lunatics, infants, every Tom, Dick, Harry, and animals. So why would Shaykh Thanvi; use their non-existent knowledge of Ghayb to negate better-ness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and negate merit of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowing Ghayb? He had to do what a comedian would call put-down. When a comedian is hackled by member of audience typically comedian would say something horrible nasty comment about hackler, his mother … so hackler does not intervene during his show. Shaykh Thanvi insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because it was suggested he has limited knowledge of Ghayb. And he had to do a put-down of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prevent Sunni from believing in prophetic Ghayb. This is heritage of Deobandis and evil Sunnah Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi originated and Shaykh Thanvi acted on it.

iib) Let’s suppose some creation, an animal, insect, lunatic, children and everyone in general has some knowledge of Ghayb as Shaykh Thanvi suggested: “… 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.” Will that mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is no better than lunatics, animals, infants, insects? And his Ghayb knowledge is not better than what is known to animals, insects, lunatics, kids? Nope. Absolutely not. Because merit is to be established on basis of quantity, quality, and different types of Ghuyub known to each party.

iic) Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is DEFINITIVE in quality i.e. Qatti. And any knowledge of Ghayb that a creation may gain, such as a true dream of a common man, at best, at the highest level would reach to degree of Zann i.e. doubtful/suspect. Meaning it is unreliable, questionable, doubtful, not worthy of acting on. IF you get a dream in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is instructing you to slaughter your child – will you get up and do that? Prophets their Ghayb, the reports they received via Gibraeel, the Ghayb they heard and saw, true dreams they had, were all QATTI. This is why Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) woke up and informed his son I have to sacrifise you in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Prophets even received Wahy in their sleep in form of dream. This is why Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said (a non-prophets) true dream is one 40^th part of Wahi. In short the Ghayb which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw with his eyes, heard with his ears, saw in his mind in dreams, Ghayb that was brought to him by Gibraeel was DEFINITIVE.  There was, is, will be no doubt, question, regarding certaintity of this Ghayb. How can this DEFINITIVE Ghayb compare to Zanni Ghayb of creation?

iid) Before the next point it is important to know difference between linguistical Ghayb and Shari Ghayb.

(a) Linguistic Ghayb is all that is out of reach of common-man’s five senses. For Amr what is happening at London Bridge at this moment is Ghayb because it is not in his five senses.  For Bakr the events of London Bridge are not Ghayb because he can see and hear because he is at the location.  In other words linguistic Ghayb is one-man’s Ghayb but not another’s. Or you can say linguistic Ghayb is of type which is Ghayb from senses of one creature but it can be accessed by an ordinary creature with his ordinary five senses. Linguistic Ghayb is not truly Ghayb because this type of Ghayb is in realm of ordinary existence. Hell, paradise, angels, Jinn, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), preserved tablet … are truly Ghayb because they exist in a plain which no ordinary creation can access.

(b) Shari Ghayb is that which only elite can have access to. Obviously through their five senses but super-five-senses. This is Ghayb of type such as angels, Jinn, Satan, hell, paradise, Wahi etc. Ordinary human cannot access these Ghuyub with their senses even IF these were displayed in front of them. Prophets and Messengers had access to these.

iie) The creations can only know a certain type Zanni Ghayb as well as linguistic-Ghayb such was seeing/hearing Ghayb. But Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are DEFINITIVE TYPE and Shari type i.e. hearing, seeing, wahi as well as linguistical-Ghuyub. How can these types of prophetic Ghuyub not establish merit above common creatures Zanni Ghayb and linguistical Ghayb?

iif) Quantity is also a mean via which someone’s superiority is measured. An individual with one car and another person owns 50 cars whose wealth standing is better? Obviously the individual who owns greater quantity/number of cars. Quantity of Ghuyub which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are such greater in quantity that one has to be stupid to even assume anyone of creatures Shaykh Thanvi mentioned equalled Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Ghayb knowledge. How can one whose knowledge of Qatti Ghayb immeasurably exceeds the Zanni quantities known to creatures not be superior, better, and special in his knowledge as well as have merit above creatures mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi?

iig) In short quality, types of Ghuyub known, quantity of Ghuyub known all combine to establish merit of prophetic knowledge and by default superiority of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over the creatures which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Yet Shaykh Thanvi denied this reality. Question is why? Did he not know quality, quantity and different types/forms/genre Ghuyub establish merti? Was he an idiot? I have no doubt Shaykh Thanvi was fully aware of these after all he was a major scholar and not a regular idiot. Than why would Shaykh Thanvi write this Kufr. Simple fact in Deobandism for sake of defending Tawheed insulting Prophets and Saliheen Awliyah is a virtue. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi invented this Sunnah. Shaykh Thanvi following Shaykh Dehalvi’s footsteps felt Tawheed was in danger if Ilm ul-Ghayb is affirmed for Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so he did what Shaykh Dehalvi did in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman, and Sirat e Mustaqeem i.e. insult the Prophets, companions, and Awliyah, here. In other words this was nothing accidental mistake rather a deliberate attempt to discourage people from believing in prophetic Ghayb by downplaying Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) merits and insulting him.

iii) Anyone who is familiar with what Shaykh Thanvi wrote, why he wrote it, is aware evidences refuting him, evidences of Quran/Sunnah establishing prophetic Ghayb and yet considers him Muslim after exhausting all effort such a person is Kafir and apostate like Shaykh Thanvi.

[MuhammedAli]

https://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/26207-disrespect-and-insult-of-prophet-sallallahu-alayhi-wa-aalihi-wassallm-in-shaykh-ashraf-ali-thanvis-statement-of-hifz-ul-iman/

[saad234]

Can you refute the claims on deobandi from this forum?  if you do I will be a barelvi they are defending the scans from shaykh thanvi etc

[MuhammedAli]

I don't care about you becoming Barelwi and I am not taking the bait. Why do you think IF i successfully refute, or IF i fail to refute anything you posted in Urdu - would mean what Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote is not disrespectful and insulting?

You're just stuck on usage of words aisa and jaisa. You think IF you can bring a statement which has these words some how Shaykh Thanvi's statement will be purified and justified. You're wrong, aisa itself is not an issue, nor is jaisa/taisa/waisa/kaisa. Aisa has been used in context of denial of Takhsees. Denial of speciality n superiority of prophet n his Ghayb when compared to creatures mentioned:

“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 (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special 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]

IF one denies Takhsees/speciality as is in the case of this statement than on what basis is he denying superiority n speciality? Equality! One guy can count to ten and other guy can count to ten both are equals hence one has no superiority n speciality over the other. So I would say, if Ali can count to ten and Thanvi can count to ten than what is so unique about Thanvi because Ali also can count to ten. You realize I am denying speciality and Shaykh Thanvis uniquness on basis of equality. Similarly when Shaykh Thanvi writes and is denying superiority of prophet n denying speciality n uniqueness of prophetic Ghayb over the creatures he has mentioned: "... if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique/special 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 ..."  Since denial can only be on basis of equality or inferiority therefore aisa (like-this) has been used to denote equality and aisa is of Tashbeeh/comparision. Because without comparing Prophet with the creatures he mentioned how can he say one is not better over the other. There has to be Tashbeeh/comparision for him to make conclusion that prophet has no Takhsees and word aisa i.e. like-this is used in meaning of comparision typically in Urdu and here too as demonstrated it is used in meaning of comparision. How can one say so n so is like-this n prophet is no better than these ...without insulting prophet? 

I am 43 years of age. The days of I jumping to meet challenges and trying to win converts for my sect and WINNING debates and eagerness to get into shouting matches are long past me. Put your self before sect and Mullahs representing your sect. Dont let love of them get in the way of love and respect of prophet peace be upon him. I will make Dua for you.

I have written extensively over this and you can read those articles below. I strongly advise you to study this dispute on basis of what is good for your here-after and not I WILL BECOME BARELWI ... I am not here to win converts FOR BARELWIS. I have concern for hearafter of Muslims and Muslims who have concern about their own hereafter. IF you think this is BARELWI vs DEOBANDI ... MY SECT VS YOUR SECT ... opressor vs opressed ... you're looking at the issue wrongly. Make it issue for your hereafter and issue of pleasing Allah, issue of following straight path.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 دسمبر 2023 by MuhammedAli