Responding To Deobandi Reaction On Article -: Taqwiyat ul-Iman - Shaykh Dehalvi Wrote Prophet Said: One Day I Will Die And Mix Into Dust.

[MuhammedAli]

Responding To Deobandi Reaction On Article -: Taqwiyat ul-Iman - Shaykh Dehalvi Wrote Prophet Said: One Day I Will Die And Mix Into Dust.

Introduction:

(i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman alleged that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: I will one day die and mix into dust. Shaykh not only attributed a lie to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but he also wrote, I will one day die and mix into dust, as IF Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) himself said it. This disrespectful tone of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is surrounded by other rude and disrespectful insinuations. The original article can be read, here. (ii) It has been nearly five months when a Deobandi contacted via private message and introduced himself as a Talib ul-Ilm (i.e. seeker of knowledge). He shared with me his rebuttal to the original article linked above. He also shared link of a Deobandi WordPress blog which aimed respond to Sunni arguments on, I will one day die and mix into dust, and challenged me to refute contents of WordPress blog. Link to the WordPress page will be shared in the coming rebuttal – my rebuttal to WordPress can be read, here. (iii) Deobandi Talib’s rebuttal was mix between, insults hurled toward Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) which wasn’t surprising. Typically a habit Deobandis who have done Chilla on grave/book ignoble and shameless Hussain Ahmad Tandvi. I have removed all such comments. The other part of rebuttal was demonstration of academic lack and not thinking arguments through. All this was nicely gift wrapped: “We should look at the issue academically and not emotionally because emotional involvement impairs our judgement.” A brilliant example of: DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

Controversial And Insulting Statement Of Taqwiyat ul-Iman:

“ … Abu Dawud nay zikr keeya keh Qays Bin Sa’d nay naqal keeya keh, gaya mein aik shehr mein, jis ka naam Hira heh, so dekha mein nay wahan kay logoon ko, Sajdah kartay thay apnay Raja ko, so kaha mein nay albatta peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ziyada layk hen keh Sajda keejiyeh un ko, phir aya mein peyghambar e khuda (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kay pass, phir kaha mein nay keh, gaya tha Hira mein, so dekha mein nay un logoon ko, Sajda kartay hen apnay Raja ko, tum bhot layk ho Sajdah keren ham tum ko, so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, joh too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon, Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray. Is Hadith say maloom huwa keh Sajdah nah kissi zinda ho keejiyeh, na kissi murda ko, na kissi qabr ko, na kissi thaan ko keun ke’h …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] Translation: “In Mishkat (in Book of Marriage) chapter 10 of Wives, here, it is written that Abu Dawud, here, mentioned: “Qays Ibn Sa’d said I travelled to a city whose name is Hirah and there I saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a Satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you/tum have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrate themselves before tum/you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said to Usko/him: No. He then said: Do not do so.” Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die. From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu]

0.0 - Deobandi Talib ul-Ilm’s Opening Barrage And My Response:

He wrote: “Salam. I wasn’t to say your article is a representation of typical Barelwi lies, distortions, and campaign of misinformation against Uqabir of Ulamah of Deoband. The level of deception in your article is astounding and I am not surprised because you’re inheritor of  125  plus years Barelwi culture of … I will be pointing out something’s but I hope that you respond and refute this article, *** LINK REMOVED ***” (i) What can I say! We will both see IF not both at least readers and seekers of truth will see who has been telling lies, engaged in distortions, campaign of misinformation, and deception. (ii) Visualize IF there was no deception, no lies, no misinformation, and no distortion on part of Sunni scholarship of Indian subcontinent. Instead all against Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and Taqwiyat ul-Iman was legitimate Sunni criticism and issues were bad as Sunni scholarship has said they are than what is the worse you? What will be your recourse in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) when you discover you were heir of two-hundred plus years of Deobandi scholarship defending a major Kufr and insisting insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Ayn/pure Islam. What is the worse that can happen to you on the day? Discover you died a Murtad, and discover all your life you’ve strived to defend a Kufr, said disrespect and insults directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was absolutely OK. Give this idea space in your head and just think about your Aakhira. I telling you be selfish, think about yourself only, not my Uqabir have been oppressed, not who is right/wrong. Just think about you and your Aakhira on basis of possibility that you have been lied to, and it is Deobandi scholarship engaged in lies, distortions, and has been engaged in a massive cover-up through misinformation and deception. (iii) I will also unpack the damage on my side. We the Sunni Muslims and scholarship make Takfir of Deobandi Uqabir unjustly and it returns to us as per prophetic teaching, invalid Takfir returns. And let us suppose we get no exemption from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), that is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deems no excuse valid enough to lift returning Kufr from us, and Kufr returning is major Kufr not minor. In this worse case scenario we are Kafir. In Sunni and Deobandi worst case scenarios let me ask you: Who stood up, even unto Kufr, due to love, respect, dignity, honour and in defence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Between Sunni and Deobandi – in our worse case scenario: Who will enter hell knowing Aakhira was lost due to love, for sake respect of, and in defence of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) honour/dignity? Who will enter hell knowing Aakhira was lost because we deemed insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) absolutely OK, and knowing we deemed a Kufr Ayn/pure Islam, and promoted it?

1.0 - Argument -: Deobandi Acting On Evil Sunnah Of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani:

You wrote: “You’re lying about ... You have no proof that Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi deliberately intended to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Your … Hazrat …” I had to civilize your three sentence paragraph because I didn’t want evil Sunnah to spread: “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 theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] (i) You insulted Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma), calling him vile names, including mocking his complexion. You’re truly heir of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s abusive trait as expertly demonstrated in his Shahab as-Saqib. Page 18 onwards Radd Shahab as-Saqib Bar Wahhabi Khayb, here, has highlighted 640 occurrences of insults directed to Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Don’t be disheartened keep trying you will become reach Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani level in couple of decades. (ii) You hurled all that abuse toward, Sayyidi, Sanadi, Mujtahid, Mujadid, Ala Hadhrat, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, al-Qadiri (rahimullah) because he defended RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) against the insults, abuse, and disrespect coming from Deobandi scholarship. I quote you a Hadith, not that it will make any difference to you, but I will establish evidence against you: “Narrated Aisha: Once Hassan bin Thabit asked the permission of the Prophet to lampoon (i.e. compose satirical poetry defaming) the infidels. The Prophet said, "What about the fact that I have common descent with them?" Hassan replied, "I shall take you out of them as a hair is taken out of dough." Narrated `Urwa: I started abusing Hassan in front of Aisha, whereupon she said. "Don't abuse him, for he used to defend the Prophet (with his poetry).” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H73, here.] I tell you: Do not abuse Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) he defended Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with his speech and pen – against sophisticated insults, disrespect, and out right abuse of so called Muslims.

1.1 - Proof Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi Deliberately Insulted Prophet Of Allah:

You said I have no proof Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi deliberately insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “You have no proof that Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi deliberately intended to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s own confession that he used Tayz language:  “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is Tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were of Shirk Khafi (hidden Shirk) I have stated them as (Shirk) Jalli (i.e.clear/major Shirk). Due to these reasons I fear publishing of this will definitely lead to strife. IF I were to stay here than I would have lectured over these topics systematically over eight to ten years but my intention is to go for Hajj and upon returning from there I have plans for Jihad. Due to this I am unable to do this and I see no other will take this weight/responsibility. Hence I have written this book and there will be strife due to it but my expectation is that after fighting strife all will sort themselves out this is my opinion. IF your persons opinion is in support of publishing it than it will be published otherwise it will be destroyed.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] Not only he acknowledges disrespectful language he also acknowledged altering religion of Islam. Issuing judgments in which minor (Khafi) Shirk was made major (Jalli) Shirk. There is no Ilah except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the door of Prophet-hood has closed. Hence none can change Islam. What Shaykh Dehalvi acknowledges about changing Islamic ruling is itself major Kufr.

1.2 - Meanings Of Word Tayz In Dictionary:

In Feroz ul-Lughat meaning of Tayz are recorded as: “(1) Sharp edged, (2) harsh; mean; stern, irritated, (3) extremely powerful … (4) fast, quick, (5) sly, alert, intelligent, (6) ill-mannered, angry, (7) sturdy, strong, (8) extreme, harsh, (9) dominant, superior, (10) hot, (11) active, ready/prepared, (12) corrupt/discord-creator, show-off.  […] someone who has eyes for detail, or one who has capability of seeing ahead … (17) emotional, ill-tempered/fiery-tempered (18) expensive, unattainable.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lughat, Page 403, here.] Readers should note in the controversial statement Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi clearly employed words Tayz and Tashaddad to mean two different things. Hence one cannot say here he used Tayz in meaning of Tashaddad because he himself has employed both words to mean two different things. In context he is acknowledging being extreme in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and accepts he is guilty of using ill-mannered language. This is enough to prove Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi deliberately and knowingly employed disrespectful language in regards to Prophets and Saliheen of Ummah.

2.0 – Your Saying -: You Have Insulted And Abused Shaykh Dehalvi:

You said: “You have out-rightly insulted and abused Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi (ra). This is not how a Muslim should behave in general and toward a scholar.” (i) In case of following I have to say that I only highlighted Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s high level of Taqwa, adherence to Shari’ah and control over his deviant urges for sake of pleasing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “Meaning how can I Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi allow you to have intercourse with biological your daughter, even though I would enjoy it with my own daughter, it is Haram.” You cannot be really mad at me due to this. I do agree the way it was conveyed is not very heart warming. (ii) How about this Taweel? Does this dampen your rage? IF no than why do you think your Taweelaat of insults and abuse hurled at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shaykh Dehalvi be any comfort to my and aching hearts of believers who love the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! IF you loved the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as you love Shaykh Dehalvi you wouldn’t be defending him nor his insults. You stood up for whom you love and I for the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) You protested I called him bastard. I did not call him bastard to insult him but gave a example of how a untrue statement can be abuse/insult. I wrote: “Linguistically the words words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used, mar kar mitti mein milnay, are used to degrade and insult especially even more when words uttered have no relevance to actuality.” I used statement about Shaykh Dehalvi as an example of how untrue words can be insult: “How so? Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi you’re a BASTARD. That’s how so!” I wasn’t insulting Shaykh Dehalvi merely demonstrating truth of my claim that untrue statements are used as insults. (iv) Further more there was question mark on Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s legitimacy and it was raised in his presence and I merely based my statement on what was recorded by your Uqabir, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi on page 48 of Arwah e Salasa: “Respectable Khan Sahib said once Maulvi Muhammad Ismail Sahib Shaheed was delivering a sermon. During sermon a man stood up and said: Maulvi Sahib we have heard you’re BASTARD. He in great humility replied that senior you have heard wrong witnesses to my mother’s and father’s Nikkah are present/alive in Bud’hana, Phalt, and in Delhi itself are the Hindus, and after saying this, started sermon again.” [Ref: Arwah e Salasa, Page 48, Hikayat 44, here.] I definitely do not believe he was BASTARD. Once again I do acknowledge I could have phrased it different and made better choice of words. Or gave a different example altogether. Yet similarly to how Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi could have made better choice of words but he DELIBERATELY chose not to and I chose not to as well. My intention in using back handers was purely demonstrating how Deobandis will whine about Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi being insulted yet no Ghayrat of Iman when he insulted the greatest in all creation – Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And I believe I achieved that.

2.1 – Your Saying -: Muslim Does Not Abuse Another Muslim Or A Scholar:

(i) You wrote: “This is not how a Muslim should behave in general and toward a scholar.” Do you think degrading and insulting language used in Taqwiat ul-Iman is how a Muslims speak about the Prophets, angels, Saliheen, and Awliyah of Allah? Why don’t you the point finger toward Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and say the same with additions. How about pointing that finger toward Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani whose Shahab as-Saqib is master piece of insults and give him some ear bashing. I am Muslim and Islam is my religion and I know better what it allows and when; so bottle your selective righteous rage and sit down. Thou art not holier than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

2.2 - Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Dismantles Insulter Of Prophet Muhammad:

(i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about one who insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “And do not obey every worthless habitual swearer. (And) scorner, going about with malicious gossip. A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful. Cruel, moreover, and an illegitimate pretender. When Our verses are recited to him, he says: ‘Legends of the former peoples.’ We will brand him upon the snout.” [Ref: Q68:10/16] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Not conforming to Ayah in manners and language to be used for the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is good as disbelieving/rejecting it and saying it is legend of earlier times. (ii) You should look into Tafasir of verse I quoted. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, here. Words: “Coarse-grained crude moreover ignoble an adopted son of Quraysh.”  Also Tafsir Ibn Abbas, here. The words: “He is stuck with the folk while he is not of them.” The so called Tafsir Ibn Kathir has similar entry to previously mentioned, here. As is typical of Arab Wahhabi way of converting deceased scholars to Wahhabism they have omitted what Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) actually wrote. He clearly states Arab poets and connected word Zanim to, and Ikrimah said Zanim means person born out of wedlock, here. (iii) Man described in the Ayah insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), read from verse one onwards, and in response to his consistent barrage Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed these Ayaat. This is the only time in Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employed such harsh character reveal and part of it was making apparent his illegitimacy and indirectly calling him an animal as revealed by usage of word snout. This also explains why man questioned Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s legitimacy in his presence. Typically illegitimates insult/abuse and those who have no Haya whatsoever eventually work up the ladder of people they insult until they target Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). These Ayaat are also supporting evidence, as long as it is exception and not norm, of degrading, insulting, and discrediting, with-truth, someone who habitually insults and degrades Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

3.0 – Your Saying -: Your Founding-Scholarship Didn’t Make Takfir Of Shaykh Dehalvi:

You said: “You made mass Takfir of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat Deoband including Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed which your Uqabir did not.” There are three issues that need addressing: (i) charge of mass Takfir, (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Takfir by senior scholarship representing Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, (iii) and by myself.

3.1 - Mass Takfir Issue - Personal Experience About Deobandis:

(i) You did not cite where I made declared all Deobandis are Kafir. Following may have lead you to your conclusion: “The only exception is a man/woman who has been programed by Shayateen to accept Kufr as Islam and one who is a Kafir.” I do not believe all Deobandis are Kafir. I was in contact with a Deobandi Aalim, he passed away, he called Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s, and Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s problematic statements as BAKWAS (i.e. none-sense) when I quoted him what they have written and told me to not to bather with these idiots. I have personally met so many Deobandis when I have quoted them statements of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, one brother, put his hands together, as IF he is asking me to forgive him, almost tears in his eyes, hands shaking, pleaded me to stop quoting texts. He did not want to hear anything like that about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), I stopped immediately. I have many more such experiences but I will just limit to two. (ii) Deobandi is a label and a general identification of sectarian alignment of individual ascribing to Deobandism. To me and Sunni scholarship Deobandi label is not a marker detailing and indicating all your theological positions. Hence I and Sunni scholarship does not and will not make Takfir of entire Deobandi population.

3.2 - Mass Takfir Issue -: Types Of Deobandis And Takfir Of Only One Type:

(i) Deobandis are a huge population of millions and in this huge population. There are those: (1) Who have never heard what was written by their senior scholarship, (2) have heard but have never paid attention, (3) have encountered these statements and rejected them, (4) have taken these insults on board as Islam as correct and defend these insults. Considering these divisions how can I and Sunni scholarship make Takfir of entire Deobandism? Truth is my statement is regarding the 4^th type Deobandis (i.e. “…have taken these insults on board as Islam, as correct, and defend these insults.”). (ii) Any Deobandi, Hayati, Mamati, whoever/whatever … believes in it, deems it is correct, and stands-up in defence of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement mitti mein milnay wala hoon is upon major Kufr and death upon it without repentance is death upon Kufr. This is the position of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and position I subscribe to. There is no blanket carpet bombing with Takfir.(iii) IF you want to see blanket nullification of Islam of Muslims than you should read Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s opening paragraph of Taqwiyat ul-Iman where he wrote majority of Muslims of subcontinent are upon Shirk and yet claim to be Muslims: “First one should listen to is; a lot of Shirk is spreading amongst people and pure Tawheed is rare. Yet most people do not understand the meaning of Tawheed and Shirk and claim to have Eman (i.e. faith) but in reality are caught in Shirk. So firstly meaning … in discussions. Conclusion – all that which the Hindus enact for their idols so do these masquerading Muslims enact for saints, Prophets, leaders (i.e. Imams), Martyrs, angels and fairies. And yet continue to claim to be Muslims, subhan-Allah, (from) this face, and such a claim (of being Muslim), honourable Allah truthfully said in chapter Yusuf: "And most of them believe not in Allah except while they associate others with Him." [Ref: 12:106] Meaning most people who claim to have Iman they are caught-up in Shirk. Then if there was…” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul Iman, Page 7/8, here.]

4.0 - Scholarship’s Takfir Issue - Scholarship’s Position Regarding Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi:

Imam Muhammad Fazal Haq Khayrabadi (rahimullah) in his Tahqeeq ul-Fatwa Fi Abtal at-Taghwa declared Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi Kafir. His Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi was attested to by seventeen most prominent students of Imam Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehalvi (rahimullah), here. Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah) is reported to have said in his conversations that he deems issue of Shaykh Dehalvi’s Takfir like of Yazid, here. Meaning he does not make Takfir, nor protest, nor contends with who makes Dehalvi’s/Yazid’s Takfir, and prefers silence over him. Hence I hardly opposed senior scholarship instead I only exercised liberty to direct Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in accordance with Imam Muhammad Fazal Haq Khayrabadi’s (rahimullah) stance and principle methodology of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah).

4.1 - Scholarship’s Takfir Issue -: Imam Ahmad Raza’s Refrain And Possible Reasons:

Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat due to caution did not make Takfir and he mentioned this in his books, here. Here Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) did not specify why he refrained from Takfir but he stated it is due to principle, weakest of justifications lifts Takfir. In al-KaukabaTush Shahabiyyah Fi Kufriyati  Abil Wahabiyyah Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) stated Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s being upon major Kufr is established with Tawatur but refrains from direct Takfir. He gives no specific detail which impedes him from direct Takfir, here. In Subhan as-Subhu regarding Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi heh does state Takfir is to be held back by Judge to weakest of weak reasons, here. Once again he does not specify reason which compelled him to hold back direct Takfir.

4.2 - Scholarship’s Takfir Issue -: Four Possible Reasons OF No Direct Takfir:

In my understanding there are three reasons due to all, or three, or two, or just one which compelled Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) hold back Takfir: (i) It was reported Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi repented from Kufrs of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. (ii) There is ever so slight wiggle room in his statements to lift direct Takfir. It could be that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) held view there exist impossibly possible Taweelaat of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s insulting language hence he put away his pen before Takfir. (iii) Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) may have known that Taqwiyat ul-Iman was disowned by earlier Deobandi scholarship, some questioned the authorship, others deemed it tempered. End. Hence Imam Ahmad Raza may have withheld direct Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi due to these uncertainties but we do not know for sure. We can only speculate.

5.0 - Why No Takfir -: Notion Of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s Repentance Was Popular:

Scholars have said there were reports circulating Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi repented before he died. Allamah Syed Naeem ud-Deen Muradabadi (rahimullah) mentioned this in his At-Tayyib ul-Bayan, here. Senior Deobandi scholar Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi was also questioned about reports of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s repentance which is indication it was widely spread notion, here. Furthermore historical accounts record that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi debated in Peshawar and after crushing defeat he repented, here. Author of Afkar Wa Siyasat Ulama e Deoband references book Hidayat Us-Saliheen BarHashia Tawqeer ul-Haq, Page87, of Shaykh Nawab Qutb ud-Deen Dehalvi but despite my extensive research to source this referrence from original but to no avail. All this is indicates notion of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s repentance was popular.

5.1 - Why No Takfir -: Possibility Of An Impossible Taweel Preventing Direct Takfir:

Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) clearly and emphatically stated in many of his books that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement are clear/explicit insults and Kufr. Yet despite this it could be that Imam believed there were impossibly possible along side other factors contribute to justification to withhold Takfir. Consider following a example of an impossibly possible Taweel. Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi is kutta ka bacha (child of dog). The nearest in English would be son of bitch. Or in Urdu it would be kutti ka bacha (child of bitch). This expression in Urdu is clear, explicit, unwarranted, inexcusable abuse. Yet IF practice of Husn Zann is strong with you than you will be able to turn this abuse into a positive. Dog is loyal therefore he meant loyal man’s child. Another example for illustration. Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi is Walad ul-Haraam. Walad ul-Haraam is Arabic expression indicating illegitimate birth. Being born out of wedlock and impolitely, bastard. Word Haraam is also used in meaning of sacred/holy as in Masjid al-Haraam. Once again one with force of positivity and strong attitude of, I must have good opinion of a Muslims, may understand Shaykh Thanvi birth was special/sacred kind. These Taweelaat are possible but impossible to accept. Such Taweelaat of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statements are possible but are plausibly impossible. Maybe Sayyidi Ala Hazrat took such impossible Taweelat due to his excessive care of Takfir into account and weighed them alongside other factors hence refrained from direct Takfir.

5.2 - Why No Takfir -: Possibility False Ascription To Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi:

(i) In Munazra Jhang against Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi argued Taqwiyat ul-Iman is not Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s book but it is wrongly ascribed to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, here. He was asked to cite source for his claim and he said it was position of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani and it is recorded in his (letters) Maktoobat, here. The said letter indicates Shaykh Madani lacked confidence in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and records him saying other seniors had reservations about Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Shaykh Madni’s and Shaykh Jhangvi’s assertion about Taqwiyat ul-Iman was not too outlandish. It is known books were falsely attributed to scholars like Shah Wali-Ullah Muhaddith al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and others. Including contents of books being tempered with to fit a sectarian narrative. Hence a book being attributed to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is entirely possible but in case of Taqwiyat ul-Iman the assertion it was the case is not true. (ii) It is worth pointing out that Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) promptly refuted this assertion in debate citing Deobandi sources proving that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi indeed wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman. I referrence Urdu sources he quoted to prove his stance, here. Also Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi categorically defends and deems Taqwiyat ul-Iman authoritative work of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi.

5.3 - Why No Takfir – My Opinion Why Ala Hazrat Made No Direct Takfir:

In my opinion Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) took these three including non-mentioned reasons and refrained from direct Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. IF I had to choose the strongest possible candidate than it was reports of his repentance that forced him to withhold Takfir. There is no doubt Imam (rahimullah) deemed statements of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi as Kufr clear/explicit. And stated anyone who defends these statements or deems them Islam is upon Kufr.

6.0 - Why I Made Takfir And Why I Will Now Refrain From Takfir:
 
(i) With regards to Shaykh Dehalvi’s repentance these reports lacked authoritative validation hence I reject them. Report of his repentance were dismissed by likes of Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, here. In regards to possible Taweelaat my position is that these are too outlandish and impossible to be acceptable. In regards to Taqwiyat ul-Iman not being authored work of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. I am of opinion Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani only rejected authorship of Taqwiyat ul-Iman because he deemed contents of it undefendable and too extreme and insulting to allow meaningful defence. Hence he chucked the bath out the window to protect the baby. Shaykh Madani was belied by his very own senior scholarship likes of Shaykh Gangohi who vehemently defended Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s authorship and contents. In addition there is huge, huge amount of evidence establishing authorship of Taqwiyat ul-Iman via continuous chain of transmission from and to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Due to these reasons I made Takfir of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and in agreement with Imam Fazal Haq Khayrabadi’s (rahimullah) position. (ii) Stance of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah) regarding Ismail Dehalvi is better and I retreat to the safety of Iman and Islam in his stance. IF Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi died without repentance he died a Kafir with or without my Takfir.

7.0 - Argument -: Evidence Of TUM Usage In Poetical Verses In Praise Of Prophet:

You said: “In many poetical verses in praise word tum/you is used to for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Many which Barelwis are known to recite. No one has ever has charged them of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Based on this I would say you’re biased toward Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed (ra).”  You attempted to justify usage of TUM by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in here: “When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you/tum have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrate themselves before tum/you. He said: Tell me, if you …" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] (i) It is absolutely true that in poetical verses, Naat’s, word TUM is indeed used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but poetry is not every day speech. Rules poetry are not same as your every day speech. Just because word TUM is used for seniors in age and rank in poetry does that warrant usage of TUM in daily life. Try saying TUM to your Abba and when he bitch-slaps you try to justify your usage of TUM to him citing poetry as source. IF that is too daring than visit your Deobandi Mullah and especially IF he is way older than you in age/rank and say, TUM, TUM, TUM. And when the Masjid committee and his bully’s smack you senseless because Mullah was being disrespected than you tell them; in poetry TUM is used for seniors in age and rank. I hope they will beat some sense in you. Daily regular speech is not governed by conventions of poetry. (ii) IF my objection was based on TUM in context of a poetical verse written in praise of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. And you quoted me usage of TUM in such poetical verses and established it was accepted norm than I would accept you have proven me wrong. But usage of TUM objected to is conventional regular ordinary speech and I believe the Abba Ji’s Jhoti/slipper and Mullah Bully’s Masjid committee goons have convinced you that in conventional speech it is not accepted nor justified hence you should repent.

7.1 - Poetical Convention Regarding TUM Explained:

(i) In poetry the usage of TUM is of two types. When it is used in formal usage is in meaning of AAP and when used informally than it is in meaning of TUM. In poetical verses i.e. Naat’s TUM is FORMAL when it is used seniors in age and rank. Hence even though word is TUM the understanding is FORMAL in meaning of AAP. (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not writing poetry in praise of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He was translating a conversation between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and a companion recorded in Hadith. How can poetry’s rules justify usage of TUM in everyday conversations?

8.0 - Argument -: Arabic Anta/You Permits Translation Of It To Tum/You:

You said: “Words used in the Hadith permit him to translate anta to tum.” (i) I really have no argument or defence against this point of yours because it is grammatically totally valid point. Yet I will appeal to your sense of Tameez (manners) and Haya (shame). IF someone used ANTA for your Abba Ji and you were responsible for translating from Arabic to Urdu so your Abba Ji could understand what was being said will you translate that ANTA to TUM, or Aap? Will you say Abba Ji he is saying: TUM said this much money will be loaned to him? Or will you say Abba Ji he is saying: AAP said this much money will be loaned to him? I am just curious. How will you translate this ANTA in this context? What IF your brother translated ANTA to mean TUM while referring to your and his Abba Ji? Will you ponder; grammar allows ANTA to mean TUM. Or will you say to brother: Have you no Tameez (manners)? Will you accept IF he says ANTA allows TUM translation? (ii) IF you wouldn’t and I know you wouldn’t accept nor tolerate this bad-Tameezi (ill-manners) in connection with your mother and father than how can you even contemplate justifying such ill-manners for the Messengers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? It is such a shame that ones that you love, respect, care about, ones you deem your own, your blood would boil. For the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you’re attempting to legalize this bad-Tameezi on grounds of grammar allows it. (iii) Why such treatment of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Why don’t you say the truth: ‘I have no love, respect, care about anyone who is not my own in my heart and mind.’ Truth is you do not believe the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is your own and when you believe he is you will not tolerate any disrespect even IF grammar allows it like in case of your Abba Ji. We all stand for ones we love, respect, care-about, and deem our own, and hurt when they are insulted. For now your love, respect and own-ness is for Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and you will make excuses and hurt for him.

9.0 - Argument -: Translation OF Problematic State Is In Accordance With Arabic:

You wrote: “As much as I am able to understand Arabic it seems translation, jo too guzray meri qabr par, is correct translation of text of Hadith. Urdu wording ...” (i) You were referring to following part of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation: “He said: Tell me, if you were to pass on (par) my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it?” Unfortunately I am not able to understand Arabic in such details but I can use online resources to check your claim. I copied the Arabic relevant part and used Google translation and this is the translation AI produced: “What do you think, if you passed by my grave, would you prostrate to it?” And this seems to indicate your claim may not be correct but I will not questioned your Arabic knowledge. Let us suppose your claim is correct. My question to you is: Was there no better alternative and better translation than how Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translated relevant part of Hadith? Even biological Non-Intelligent AI translated part of Hadith in best way possible and Shaykh was biologically intelligent and animate.

9.1 – Argument -: Jo Too Guzray Meri Qabr Par Is Not Offensive:

You said: “…is correct translation of text of Hadith. Urdu wording has no offensive connotations as well. Nothing to do with how an alleged ...” (i) I will not contend with your saying the Urdu translation of relevant part of Hadith is inoffensive and I will go on to say Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is not to be blamed for any misapplication. Yet in addition to this I will say there is extremely thin line which would definitively change the meaning of phrase, jo too guzray meri qabr par, and that thin line is addition of word, say. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation is 50/50. It could be changed to any direction with bit of grammatical acrobatics. Addition of, say, which I initially read into translation without even realizing it. This say will make the translation definitively offensive as in, jo too guzray meri qabr par say. (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the companions in the following verse to not to use RAINA while addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instead use UNDHURNA: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word Raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] In short the usage of RAINA was prohibited because Jews used it to insult and mock Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by distorting its pronunciation. To prevent it Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggested alternative – a word which could not be used to insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). There were/are certainly better options to translate part of Hadith in discussion and that translations would have been in accordance with Undhurna. I was/am uncertain about Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi motives to why he translated it as he did due to following: “… and to all presented Taqwiyat ul-Iman and said: ‘I have written this book and I am aware in some places bit Tayz (ill-mannered) words have come in it and in some places there is tashaddad (extremism). For example those matters which were …” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] Despite my uncertainties about Shaykh Dehalvi’s motives his translation is blameless.

9.2 – Your Saying -: MuhammedAli Speaking Through Deobandi Shaykh:

Your saying: “… no offensive connotations as well. Nothing to do with how an alleged Deobandi Shaykh used the words. It seems you’re speaking through Deobandi Shaykh.” (i) You said it seems to you that I MuhammedAli is speaking my point of view through the character of ‘Deobandi Shaykh’. Maybe I was lying. Maybe it was all a ploy to nail the point that person speaks his point of view through someone else. As I argued in my other article that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is speaking his point of view through the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). IF lied I copied and invented character to make him speak my point of view imitating Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s 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 theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Or maybe I am telling truth but I have no way to backup what I attributed to Deobandi Shaykh and my word is best you will get.

9.3 - Argument -: You Translated Part In Two Different Ways And It Shows Bias:

You wrote: “You translated par in two ways. Par to mean on/onto. Par to mean by/to while translating Urdu of Hadith from Mazhar e Haq to English.”  You said same par has been used but I have translated it to mean to and not over/on. Why? (i) I was not translating my own understanding but presenting understanding of Deobandi Shaykh Commander. In translation of Mazhar e Haq I was translating my own understanding. Just to humour you a little: (a) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation words are, jo too guzray meri qabr par -: “…so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, jo too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo …” In contrast words in Mazhar e Haq are, meri qabr par jao, here the meaning of crossing-over, travelling-over is not naturally part of sentence. Sentence, meri car par jao (i.e. go on my car) doesn’t denote crossing over. Or statement, meri dosti par jao (i.e. go by/par my friendship), in the context of Hadith language it would be, agar tum meri dosti par jao to (i.e. if you go by/on/par my friendship than). These statements do not denote same meaning of walking-over, travelling-over, pass-over as is the case in translation of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. (ii) I am not sure Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote, or intended to write what Deobandi Shaykh Commander deduced. Consequently I lay no blame upon him.

9.4 – Your Saying -: Your Biased Translation Shows Your Sectarian Mind-set:

In context of translating par/on in two different ways you also wrote: “This shows your clear partisan type of dislike of Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed (ra). IF you were fair you would have translated both same.” I would disagree with your assumption questioning my neutrality.

9.5 – Your Saying -: You Said Shaykh Dehalvi Promoted Walking Over The Grave:

(i) You wrote: “On basis of erroneous understanding and translation in English you said Shaykh Shah Shaheed promoted walking over the grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” I actually wrote: “Deobandi Shaykh was arguing grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was low enough to walk over. And indirectly insinuated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was absolutely OK with people walking over his blessed resting place. He argued Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi's wording also conveys that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wanted companions to not to overly respect him after his death as walking over the grave would insinuate but IF need be walk over my grave.” Deobandi Shaykh said Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi was indicating after the death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) companions could walk over his blessed grave. I did not say Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi promoted the idea. IF I did I would say Taqwiyat ul-Iman promotes walking over the grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) according to modern standard of Urdu because wording is double-ended. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “It was narrated from ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘If I were to walk on a live coal or a sword, or if I were to sew shows to my feet, that would be better for me than walking on the grave of a Muslim. And I see no difference between relieving myself in the midst of graves or in the middle of the marketplace.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1567, here.] How evil is a man who pays no respect due to the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) after he has passed. And puts evil ideas in minds of Muslims by down-playing severity of walking over grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to extant of wording it as being acceptable to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)?

9.6 – According To Shaykh Commander Shaykh Dehalvi Promoted Walking Over Grave:

Wording is of Taqwiyat ul-Iman is: “…so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, jo too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo …”  We say to Deobandi Shaykh Commander (PalTalk Login name) that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) compelled companion to deny prostration to blessed grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Going by your understanding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) remained silent regarding walking over his grave. And Hadith records regarding silence: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367, here.] Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) silence on something is absence of prohibition/permission in Quran and His silence is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not preventing an error with might, or with speech, here, and he does not have weakest Iman. Going by what you reasoned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited/prevented and spoke against prostration but he made no effort to prevent walking over his own grave after planting the idea. What is the silence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is indicating regarding walking over the grave IF Shaykh Dehalvi was insinuating what you deduced? Legalizing walking over the blessed grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by putting words in the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And We did not send before you any Messenger or Prophet except that when he spoke (or recited), Satan threw into it (some misunderstanding). But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” [Ref: Q22:52]

10.0 - Who And What Lead Me To Bring Erroneous Understanding To Light:

(i) During my Deobandi days some Deobandi Mullah on PalTalk going by login name Commander would deliver lectures on highlighting merits of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. And in one particular lecture was delivered on this part of Taqwiat ul-Iman and translation of Hadith. (ii) Mullah said Shaykh Dehalvi has killed two birds with one arrow. He said that Shaykh Dehalvi sowed the seeds for refuting two Biddahs with this translation. He explained that Shaykh Dehalvi refuted Biddah of elevated graves and Shirk committed at the grave site of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Upon being questioned Deobandi Mullah elaborated that people committed Shirk by showing too much respect by standing at the grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with folded arms, head bowed, with submission and respect like in Salah. And Deobandi Mullah went on to say Shaykh Dehalvi’s translation indicates lowered grave: “… jo too guzray meri Qabr par …” And as act of curing a sickness (of Shirk) insinuated walking over grave to lower the God-hood level respect that was/is in the heart and minds of Muslims in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) Deobandi Mullah said the insinuation wasn’t actable, nor one should intend to act on it, nor Shaykh Dehalvi intended the people should act on it, because author only wrote that to cure Shirk and author himself knew his insinuation was unactionable because grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was inaccessible. Hence author’s intention in this translation was only a written-device to lower the God-hood level respect in the hearts and minds of Muslims.

10.1 - Refuting Deobandi’s  Excessive Love, Respect, Submission, And Shirk Charge:

It is recorded in Hadith: “It was narrated that Al-Bark said: "We went out with the Messenger of Allah for a funeral, and when we reached the grave the Lahd had not yet been prepared. He sat, and we sat around him, as if there were birds on our heads." [Ref: Nisa’ee, B21, H2003, here.] Following Hadith adds that it means sitting absolutely still: "Al-Bara Bin Azib said, “We went out with God’s messenger to the funeral of a man of the Ansar, but when we reached the grave the niche in the side had not yet been made, so the Prophet sat down facing the qibla and we sat down along with him.” Abu Dawud, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah transmitted it, Ibn Majah adding: Quietly. Literally as though the birds were over our heads. An explanation of the phrase is that when a bird alights on a camel’s head and begins to pick the ticks off it, the camel stands perfectly still so as not to frighten it away." [Ref: Mishkat ul-Masabih, B5, H185, here.] And to this I add that it also means the companions sat with heads bowed but absolutely still. I say heads bowed down because how rude would it be to stare Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the eyes non-stop. Try making non-stop eye contact with your Abba Ji, in English, I mean dad. How comfortable were you with staring at him like a creep and how comfortable was he? The companions did not stare at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor they were so rude.

10.2 - Countering Deobandi Fake Tawheed/Shirk And Charge Of Shirk:

(i) IF standing in respect in court of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shirk because such standing in respect is only due to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Than sitting still as one stands/sits still excessively in Salah like birds are resting on our heads is also Shirk. Is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not deserving of such stillness? Than how many companions committed Shirk of Stillness? Here. I am done with Jahalat/ignorance of alleged Muslims claiming Tawheed. (ii) O Muslims Ibadah is combination of many components including stillness, respect, humility, fear, submission, and love. One or all of these with addition of any physical gesture does not warrant Shirk until belief in Ilahiyyah and intention of worship is affirmed for whom the action insinuating stillness, respect, humility, fear, submission, and love … are performed for. Standing in respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as described earlier is not action of Shirk and only a Kafir prevents Muslims from respecting him in ways which are allowed. Prohibited ways of showing respect established out of Sunnah are prostration and bowing.

11.0 - Your Saying -: You’re Following Your Uqabir’s Invented Narrative:

You wrote: “Instead of being a true Muhaqiq/researcher, which you pretend to be, you chose to toe typical Barelwi narrative invented by your Uqabir ...” (i) In response I will say that like all before and all after me I too had to gain knowledge from those before me. No angels informs of Ghayb, and no Jinn has handed written record of matters, nor I say I was a witness to events. I had to sift through written record passed to you and me by your and my senior scholarship and than made a judgement based on those contents as well as my knowledge of Urdu language. I might seem to you that I am walking over path which Uqabir have paved. You won’t believe me but I have paved my own path and it happens to coincide with their stance. I will urge you to demonstrate to me where I have copied stole their narrative and made it mine.  Only the destination is same but the path I walk on has been paved with guidance and help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not stealing arguments. (ii) Why is that IF I walked on path of Uqabir Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah you look down upon it? Yet you can do the same without guilt? I have no concrete evidence you’re walking on crooked path paved by your Uqabir but I am pretty certain you’re because you’ve suspended your knowledge of Urdu to blindly accept invalid Taweelat of your Deobandi Uqabir and contempories.

11.1 - Your Saying -: Barelwi Uqabir Translated Par To Mean On Instead Of By:

You wrote: “… Barelwi narrative invented by your Uqabir and dishonestly translated par/by/to so you can target him as your Uqabir have done over a century.” (i) You’re saying Uqabir Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat translated par to mean on instead of by and I am walking on their path. Barelwi Uqabir Ulamah have not objected to translation of Hadith. All their antagonism is regarding Shaykh Dehalvi’s Dajjalic behaviour and wording attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… farmaya to, mat karo. Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon,…” IF you read the books of scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah they too have translated the Hadith as Ismail Dehalvi and Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) has indicated via his own translation that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s translation is blameless in al Kawkaba Ash-Shihabiyyah Fi Kufri’at Ab il-Wahhabiyyah: “Batao agar meri qabr par guzr ho to tum us ko Sajdah karo gay?” [Ref: Al-KawKabat ash-Shihabiyyah, Page 31, here.]

11.2 - Your Saying -: Dishonestly Translated Par To Target Shaykh Dehalvi:

You wrote: “… Barelwi narrative invented by your Uqabir and dishonestly translated par/by/to so you can target him as your Uqabir have done over a century.” (i) Tell me what does, jo too guzray meray makan ki chaa’t/roof par to Sajdah karay Allah ko, what does that mean? It is to be translated as: That IF you walk on/over the roof of my house will you prostrate to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?  Now what about this: “…so farmaya muj ko bala khayal too kar, jo too guzray meri Qabr par, kia Sajdah karay, to usko kaha mein nay, nahin, farmaya to, mat karo …” How will a common man coming out of Pakistani/Indian school education system will understand this? Who was the target audience of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? Likes of Imam Ghazali (rahimullah)? Or the Allamah’s and Fahamah’s of Dar ul-Uloom Deoband? Shaykh Dehalvi wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman as way of guiding ‘Muslim’-Mushrikeen to Tawheed. How will they read and understand the statement? Norm in scholarship and language is that words, phrases, sentences are understood according to common parlance (i.e. urf aam). And what lesson is common man learning reading above statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? There are not many ELITE level Allamah’s who will understand the above contrary to how Deobandi Shaykh Commander said. Only brainwashed, intellectually dwarf, intelligently non-existent will read and comprehend it completely innocent. Obviously Deobandi Shaykh I encountered had his reasons to deduce such meaning and I completely understand his basis but also know in Urdu Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s time this expression had no such meaning which Shaykh Commander deduced nearly 175 years later.

12.0 - Argument -: Mitti Mein Milna Is Natural For Deceased So Shaykh Said It:

To defend Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi you said in the worse case scenario: “Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi only stated natural meaning of Hadith based on what naturally happens to deceased. It is strange you Barelwis charge him of insulting and degrading Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to this.” Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi had wrote: “…mat karo. Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab Sajdah kay layk hoon, Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] Translation: “…Do not do so.” Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay). Hence …" (i) It is hard to comprehend you assumed this to be a valid argument in defence of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Have you become Majnoon in love of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi? How can the natural course of decomposition be associated with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when Ahadith make it clear decomposition is not true in connection with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other Prophets? Have you not read the Hadith: “Aws b. Aws reported the Messenger of Allah as saying: Among the most excellent of your days is Friday; so invoke many blessings on me on that day, for your blessing will be submitted to me. They (the Companions) asked: Messenger of Allah, how can our blessings be submitted to you, when your body has decayed? He said: Allah has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1526, here.] (ii) IF Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi attributed natural decomposition to your Abba Ji, and Amma Ji, and your children, and you than I wouldn’t have had objection because they like you are likely mar kar mitti mein milnay walay type people. Much like your Iman and heart has mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Say natural decomposition thing using Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s words about your own Deobandi Mullahs. Say it about Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh blind crow eating Gangohi, say it about Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, say Shaykh Manzoor Nomani mar kar mitti mein mil gaya, say Shaykh Hussain Madani is mar kar mitti mein milnay wala type. Say they were mar kar mitti mein milay, mar kar mitti mein mil-gay, mar kar mitti mein milnay walay type people. Translation: they died and mixed with dust (as dust), … they were type of people who will die and mix with dust (as dust). These Shayateen are subject of natural decomposition the Prophets and especially Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is did not, will not decay and decompose unlike your mother, father, Deobandi scholarship, and your ilk.

12.1 - Warning To One Attributing Lies To Prophet And One Defending Such Criminal:

(i) Have you not read Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say: “Never say that those martyred in the cause of Allah are dead—in fact, they are alive! But you do not perceive it.” [Ref: Q2:154] Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was a martyr in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is recorded in Hadith Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: “Abu al-Ahwas reported: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “For me to swear by Allah nine times that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, had been killed is more beloved to me than swearing once that he was not, for Allah Almighty appointed him as Prophet and took him as a martyr.” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Ibn Mas’ud, Hadith 3617, here.] How is it permissible to say about the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) words such as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, when he is a martyr in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about one who attributes a lie to him: "Narrated Ali: The Prophet said, 'Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H106, here.] “Narrated Anas: The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: "Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire." [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H108, here.] Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi lied about what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, lied about the interpretation of Hadith, and worst part is put the lie in the mouth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and made him lie against his own words: “It was narrated from Abu Darda’ that the Messenger of Allah said: “Send a great deal of blessing upon me on Fridays, for it is witnessed by the angels. No one sends blessing upon me but his blessing will be presented to me, until he finishes them.” A man said: “Even after death?” He said: “Even after death, for Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets, so the Prophet of Allah is alive and receives provision.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1637, here.] Evil is man who invents lies and attributes them to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but worst type of evil man is one who makes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lie. Such people will be residents of deepest depth of hell and one who defends such a Shaytan will be with them.

13.0 - Argument -: Dictionaries Have Burial In Grave As A Meaning Of Mitti Mein Milna:

You also said: “In dictionaries even ones employed by you have burial in grave as one of the meanings stated of mitti mein milna/milnay yet you deliberately translated it to present it in repugnant light. IF you had Husn al-Zann (good opinion) of Shah Shaheed …” (i) Mar kar mitti mein milna (mixing with dust after death) – one of its meaning as mentioned in quoted reference and noted by you as well is to bury dead in grave. I absolutely agree this is one of the meanings. Is the phrase; mein bi aik din mitti mein milnay wala hoon, right choice of words to say; one day I will die and will be buried in a grave especially when the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are: “A man said: “Even after death?” He said: “Even after death, for Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets, so the Prophet of Allah is alive and receives provision.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1637, here.] When Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi deliberately and knowingly did not make the right choice of words than why do you wish that I make the choice for Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi? I had no right to make good choices for a man who has chosen Kufr. (ii) Words mar kar mitti mein milna and its many variations are used to mean burial of dead in a grave for common people whose bodies naturally disintegrate decompose into dust. This is the origin and reason of usage of this phrase to mean burial in grave. (iii) Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi have died and consequently like all your Uqabir they have mitti mein mil gay (i.e. mixed with dust). Hence natural Taweel for using these words for them would be burial in grave and it would be right choice of words. (iv) Readers should note that in Urdu to describe someone’s burial in similar words to as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (i.e. one to mix into dust after death), is rude and disrespectful.

13.2 – Way To Get The Poetical Tum/You Smacked Out You:

Deobandis in general and you in specific how many times in your life have you said Shaykh Thanvi has mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (i.e. died and mixed into dust)? Or have you said: My grand parents have mar kar mitti mein mil gay (i.e died and have mixed with dust)? Or have you said: Dad one day tum/you will die and mitti mein milnay walay ho (i.e. will mix into dust)? Your Abba Ji would smack the poetical tum out of you for using that language for him. IF you don’t believe me don’t try it on your Abba Ji but try it on your local Deobandi Masjid’s Mullah and see how he enlists help Muwahid non-Biddati goons to FIX your mental health and academic lack issues.

13.3 - Why It Is Wrong To Translate Mitti Mein Milnay To Mean Burial In Grave:

(i) It is not correct to translate mitti mein milnay to mean burial in grave when these words are used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because condition required for this phrase to mean burial in grave is decomposition. Earth has been forbidden to decompose bodies of Prophets as evidenced by: “… be submitted to me. The people asked: Messenger of Allah, how can it be that our blessings will be submitted to you while your body is decayed? He replied: Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B3, H1042, here.] Hence to translate; mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to mean; I will one day die and will be buried in a grave, will establish that decomposition is true for Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I am not of the Kafirs who wish and believe so and IF you’re not than do not translate it as you wanted me to do so. (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi should have said, one day I will die and will be buried in grave, yet he deliberately chose words which insinuate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is ordinary human being whose body is subject to decomposition. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] This Ayah is reference to unintended consequences of words which may lead disbelievers taking advantage and insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Man who deliberately writes degrading and insulting language for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not a believer even IF he claims so.

14.0 – Argument -: Noor ul-Lughat States Word Mein Is Used To Mean Sey:

You wrote: “Had you actually bothered to look into the matter in an unbiased academic manner than you would have discovered that sometimes word mein (English equivalent IN) is used in meaning of sey (English equivalent FROM/WITH). As a result statement of Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi means: One day I will too die and come in contact with dust (i.e. mitti say milnay wala hoon). This meaning is what should be expected of scholar like Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi Shaheed.” (i) I searched Noor ul-Lughat and located  your reference, here, and I am pleased to say you have taught me something new with regards to usage of Mein being used in meaning of Sey. (ii) You’re purposing Taweel of an idiomatic expression, mitti mein milna/milnay, based on linguistic meaning of word Mein. (iii) I want to test your commitment to this vain and than I will address the deception you, your Uqabir, like Shaykh Manzoor Nomani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbangi, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, and others engaged in. (iv) How would you understand, Mein (in), in following sentence: Aik mota, lamba, particularly and aggressively tehra/bent danda Ismail Dehalvi mein gum ho gaya? (v) Did you read Mein (in and into) in meaning of Sey (from and with)? What was your natural unmolested understanding? Did it get lost from, or with, or in Ismail Dehalvi? Someone gasped and his jaw dropped reading that.

14.1 – An Explanation Of When Usage Of Mein Is In Meaning Of Sey:

(i) This is - JUST FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT – IF idiomatic expressions can be subject to change on basis of linguistic meanings of words. Mein is in meaning of Sey where natural meaning of Mein (in/into) is not linguistically attainable. In Shaykh Dehalvi’s insulting remarks natural meaning of Mein is only solution because linguistically there is no impediment hindering natural meaning. To illustrate my point. Ali: Glass mein pani dal do. Apparent literal translation: Pour water in/into the glass. On basis of dictionary Mein can be used as alternative of Sey - how will you understand that? Pour the water from glass or water into the glass. Anyone with ounce of sense and Urdu knowledge will understand what is being asked is to pour water into glass. Why? Because there is no linguistically justifiable reason to assume FROM/WITH glass. In contrast Mein used in following is in meaning of Sey: Dewar mein is jacket ko laga do. Translation: Hang this jacket with wall.

14.2 - Idiomatic Expressions Not Subject To Linguistic Meaning Interpretation:

(i) Your BAKWAS about idiomatic expression can be subjected to linguistic Taweels. This fraud was perpetuated by your dishonest and desperate Uqabir. (ii) Mitti mein milna is a idiomatic expression with fixed meanings associated with it. It is not subject to change due to linguistic meaning of words used in it. Mitti say milna (to contact with dust) is itself a idiomatic expression meaning death as well as meaning of being laid to rest in grave. IF Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi intended this than he would have used this expression. This expression is not in anyway offensive or insulting. On other hand expression employed by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is totally different ball game and is used derogatively.

14.3 – Subjecting Idioms Change Based On Other Meaning Of Words Is Unacceptable:

(i) In light of what you said the statement, “Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab …“, should be read and understood as: mein bi aik din mar kar mitti say milnay wala hoon. What you have stated is changing the idiomatic expression based on linguistic meaning of words. One. Imagine someone saying: Shaykh Thanvi is a son of a bitch. When he is challenged he uses dictionary to argue bitch is any carnivorous female mammal. Hence I meant son of bitch as in son of female-fox. This is appropriate description of Shaykh Thanvi because I believe he was sly as a fox. No sane person would accept this Taweel because phrase and expression son of a bitch is common insult where Shaykh Thanvi is said akin to dog via referencing his mother to a bitch. Two. Take Arabic idiomatic expression, Walad ul-Haram. Imagine calling someone Walad ul-Haram (illegally born) and than resorting to other dictionary meanings of word Haram to change the fixed idiomatic meaning associated with it. No one will accept this Taweel because some phrases have fixed definitive meanings associated with them which do not change based on linguistic meanings of words used in them. Three. I will bring the temperature down with my examples. Idiom: Doobtay ko tinkay ka sahara. Idiomatically: Troubled individual finds solace in insignificants. Idiom: Ye chand garriyun ka mehman he. Idiomatically: He is alive few more moments. Question: Should we subject these and thousands of other idiomatic expressions in Urdu to other possible meanings of words used in idioms to alter and change what they mean? Is that correct course of action? (ii) Words mitti mein milna/milnay in sentence, “Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, to kab …“ are idiomatic and have fixed meanings and are not subject to change based on other linguistic meanings of words used in it: “Idiom -: Mitti mein milna -: To mix/integrate with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicating from existence, joyless/tasteless, to waste.” [Ref: Jahangir ul-Lughat, Page 1348, by Wasi-Ullah Khokhar, here.] (iii) It is not that your Uqabir were unaware that idiomatic expressions have fixed meanings and these meanings are not subject to change due to linguistic meaning of words used in them. This is literally true in every language. They knew too well. They did everything in their arsenal including deception, lying, cheating to justify Kufr and make Kufr into Islam. These people were so low in their morals and high on academic deception that they said and did anything to defend Kufr. You break the cycle and support Islam.

14.4 - Same Old Insulting The Messenger Just New Monkeys And New Show:

Munafiq ever making excuses to avoid consiquences after mocking, and is ready to downplay insults  directed toward the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Age old excuse; we didn’t mean this; we were only joking and talking idly: : “If you ask them (about this), they declare: "We were only talking idly and joking. " Say: "Was it at Allah and His Ayat and His Messenger that you were mocking?" [Ref: Q9:65] Modern Deobandi excuse; we didn’t mean this; dictionary says word means this. On the ground level same old claptrap, i.e. making excuses after insulting the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), like of Munafiqeen insulted the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), than offered excuses, just new monkeys and another circus of insults.

15.0 - Your Saying – Sane Take Grammar, Meanings From Dictionaries, Experts, And Poets:

You said: “Number of times in your article you wrote readers can ask the common Urdu speakers about the meaning of words and usage of these phrases. Why should the knowledge of ignorant/Jahil people be standard of judging truth? All sane people take knowledge of grammar and meaning of words from dictionaries written by experts, grammarians, and poets you want people to approach ignorant people on streets. The ignorant people are not standard but educated elite are and we judge by them.” (i) You would be absolutely right IF meanings we wanted to determine meaning of a word used in Urdu poetical verse, a Qur’anic word, or a word used in Hadith. In such cases we should use all sources you mentioned to understand a word and broadness of meaning contained in it. (ii) In the previous section I employed, Shaykh Thanvi is son of bitch. I say this is not abuse. You say it is abuse and insult. You say ask anyone speaking English and they will confirm it is abuse/swearing. And I copy paste word for word what you wrote: “You said listeners can ask common English speakers about the meaning of this phrase i.e. son of bitch. Why should the knowledge of common people be standard determine what phrases mean? All sane people take knowledge of grammar and meaning of words from dictionaries written by experts, grammarians, and poets you want people to approach ignorant people on streets. The ignorant people are not standard but educated elite are and we judge by them. Hence dictionary meaning of bitch is a carnivorous female and I meant fox. In English idiomatically person is said to be sly as a fox. Fox is associated with slyness I meant Shaykh Thanvi is son of a sly woman.” Am I justified in arguing meaning of words and idioms is to be determined by dictionary meaning of words used in idiomatic phrase and not commonly associated meaning with it? No! I am not. Why? I have insulted Shaykh Thanvi in common parlance and it requires no special knowledge to know it is an insult. And saying that RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is, aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, denotes clear obvious insult and disrespect. (iii) In context of, aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, you’re absolutely wrong. You want to use dictionary meaning of words to alter and support alteration of meaning of an idiomatic expressions and insults whose meanings are definitive and not subject to change based on other linguistic meanings of words used in idiomatic phrases. You also want to apply logic of poetic Tum/You to conventional conversation Tum to mean Aap. (iv) Previously I suggested readers to ask the common Urdu speakers because usage of phrase, aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is obviously insulting/disrespectful as son of bitch is in English. In this one I have directed you to approach your Abba Ji and Mullah of your Deobandi Masjid with TUM, TUM, TUM, and mar kar mitti mein -: milo gay,  mil gay, mil-nay wala heh, milna heh, milay ga, mila heh. Go say Thanvi mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Translation X3: Died and mixed with dust. Go and say to your Abba: TUM bi mar kar mitti mein millo gay. Translation: Dad you will die and mix into dust. Preach and practice this on your Deobandi Uqabirs, and people you love and care about, and to people who can restore your mental and academic imbalance. You’re only getting away with insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because MUSLIMS are not aware what is in your books. (v) You’re not bothered about insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he is ours. When you use that language for your own Deobandi Mullahs and Amma, Abba, grandparents than you will learn how truth will give you bruises and how it hurts.

16 - Summary Of Arguments And Responses To Fundamental Statement:

You said I have no evidence to my claim that Shaykh Dehalvi deliberately used offensive language and I proved my claim with evidence. You argued usage of Tum by Shaykh Dehalvi did not insinuate disrespect because in poetical verses written in praise of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) word TUM is used. To which I responded everyday speech is not poetry and rules of poetry do not govern everyday speech and suggested you use this poetical TUM for your Abba and Amma and Mullahs you associate. You also said Arabic Anta can be translated to mean TUM hence Shaykh Dehalvi translated it correctly. To which I responded and checked absence of culture by pointing out how will you translate Anta for your very own Abba Ji IF you had to translate Anta from Arabic to English? Tum or Aap? Abba’s bitch-slap bringer Tum or Abba’s bitch-slap avoider Aap? Further down the lines you said regarding, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, that one of dictionary I quoted has, mitti mein milna, means burial in grave. To which I responded mitti mein milna is correct and legitimate usage to mean burial in grave when mitti mein milna is used for Shuyukh -: Thanvi, Gangohi, Saharanpuri, Madani, Dehalvi, including your Abba and Amma Ji because that what happened to them and will happen. This is not correct usage for the Prophets, Sahabah, Awliyah, epecially Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because earth has no right to consume bodies of Prophets. You also argued word Mein used in, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, in meaning of sey. To which responded IF usage of mein is also in meaning of Sey than how will you understand: Aik mota lamba tehra danda Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi mein gum ho gaya? I explained that meaning of Mein is Sey in those places where Mein in its natural meaning is improbable and difficult to assume. It was also explained words in idiomatic expressions are not subjected to linguistic meanings words employed. Hence Mein cannot be changed to meaning of Sey in phrase, mitti mein milna.

17 - Shayateen Selectively Sharing Half Truth And Presenting It As Whole Truth:

(i) Shayateen have told you words mitti mein milna means burial in grave according to dictionary meaning. They convineintly left out the fact that this meaning is so because this is what happens to common folk. For Prophets usage of this phrase is against the reality because earth has forbidden to consume bodies of Prophets. They told you TUM is OK when used for Prophets including Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because poetry has formal Tum (which is conveys meaning of Aap). Yet they conveniently left out the part that poetry conventions are not applied to everyday speech. Which is evidenced by – no one ever using Tum for their elders, parents, senior scholarship, teachers. They told you Mein is used in meaning of Sey but they left out when and where and why. They are using one side of coin to mislead and decieve you while not sharing with you other side which would expose their deception and academic massive compaign of disinformation. They told you half truth and employed to legitimize insults and disrespect directed toward the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Had they told you when, how, where, why Mein is in meaning of Sey then who would buy their narrative: Shaykh Dehalvi is innocent and a victim of Barelwi aggression. To protect senior scholarship like Shaykh Dehalvi - Deobandi scholars like Shaykh Nomani, Shaykh Dharbangi, Shaykh Saharanpuri, Shaykh Lakhnavi, Dajjal of Gakh-kar-Mandi Shaykh Sarfaraz K.S, and my contempory Shaykh Ghuman have used all tricks in their Dajjalic arsenal. While I am here it is best to point out the article you referrenced and I responded to, here, is nothing but demonstration of your Uqabir’s recycled deception. It is same old BAKWAS but a new monkey recycling and perpetuating evil that has come from your Uqabir. (ii) Don’t accept and determine THE truth based on account of a side of coin. Other side has been shown by Sunni scholarship. Make your judgment and choose a side wisely. I have chosen mine after comprehensively understanding the subject matter.

Wama alayna ilal balagh ul-mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Edited 3 ستمبر by MuhammedAli