Responding To Arguments Supporting Phrase - One Day I Will Die And Mix Into Dust - In Article: “Abu Hasan Barelwi Commits Taḥrif Right ...”

[MuhammedAli]

Responding To Arguments Supporting Phrase Mitti Mein Milnay Wala In Article: “Abu Hasan Barelwi Commits Taḥrif Right ...”

Introduction:

(i) Shaykh Abu Hassan wrote book titled, The Killer Mistake, in response to article authored by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller titled -: Iman, Kufr, And Takfir, here. Shaykh Abu Hassan attempts to bring to light explicitly Kufr including certain repugnant, disrespectful, insulting, and degrading language employed by senior Deobandi scholarship which was targeting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In a section of his book Shaykh Abu Hassan attempts to address Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s problematic statement, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust), out of many in order to demonstrate seriousness of issues which Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller downplayed. A Deobandi WordPress blog dedicated sharing lies, distortions, and Dajjals deceptions produced by their scholarship responded to Shaykh Abu Hasan and bickered in typical Deobandi style, here. This article is mainly a response to this Dajjal’s warehouse on this controversial statement. As a side note I will look into content produced by Shaykh Abu Hassan on statement, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust).

0.0 - How Cookie Will Crumble, Foreshadowing OF Things To Come:

(i) I have reason to believe article I am responding to article written by a Deobandi, Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman. (ii) There will be places where I stoop bit low and share name calling throne exclusively copyrighted by Deoband’s Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Tandvi. Such language used by me in places is being used as BAIT and to demonstrate game played by Deobandism so please TOLERATE such language. I will explain why there is need to stoop low as Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Tandvi just near the end of this article. IF suspense is killing you and you’ve no patience or Husn al-Zann for me, than read section 29.00 entirely to understand the game plan. I advise that you be patient until you get to that part through natural progression. This way you will go through a range of emotions; anger, disappointment, hurt, and will become judgmental: “This guy is so toxic, unacademic, crude, disgusting … how can he be writing about Islam!” When you reach the related part through natural progression all you will have is negative image. Than you will read and understand why such language was used and the revelation will shock and awe you. (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.” [Ref: Q9:73] “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating (in prayer), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their …” [Ref: Q48:29] (iv) I will entertain everything written by Mullah Zameel and respond to it as needed. In last stage a decisive evidence will be presented to demonstrate Shaykh Dehalvi used intended literal obvious natural meaning of phrase, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). The truth will be delivered with help of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and his Taqwiyat ul-Iman and until than I will humour the Mullah Zameel when and as needed.

1.0 - Recommended Readings Directly Related To Controversial Statement:

IF you’re not already aware about the subject matter I strongly advise to begin with reading articles in order of links provided in this section. In response to my article on the controversial statement, here, a diehard supporter of Deobandism attempted protect Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and attempted to portray disrespect and insult directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as blameless. He received a kick on his snout, here. This Barelwism blog’s author is about to receive his share too. It will be decisive/concrete evidence establishing mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is on its apparent literal meaning.

2.0 - Shaykh Thanvi Transmits Deliberate Use OF Insulting Language:

Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a senior scholar of Deobandi movement and their pride and joy in his Arwa e Salasa has recorded Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi as saying following about contents of Taqwiyat ul-Iman: “… 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 you 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.] Word Tayz has following dictionary meanings: “(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.] Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi employed ill-mannered language and presented minor Shirk as major Shirk, and as a result he knew there will be Fitna amongst Muslims of subcontinent but expected everything will be ALL-OK eventually. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is confessing to wrong doing - using ill-mannered language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Who do we believe - Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi or Deobandi Mullahs portraying his wrong doing as ALL-OK?

2.1 - Sheep Pen Full Yet Not An Ounce Worth Intelligence In Between:

(i) What is shocking is that none present in the gathering enquired of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi: O Shaytan incarnate when ALL-OK status is achieved will ill-mannered language employed in Taqwiyat ul-Iman turn to good manners? Will the distortion of Shirk minor into major Shirk in Taqwiyat ul-Iman correct by itself? Why are you knowingly and willingly unleashing a Fitna upon Muslims? (ii) None of senior Deobandi scholarship showed any concern about what was about to be unleashed upon Muslims of Indian subcontinent and nor considered potentially monstrous consequences. All unanimously voted to publish Taqwiyat ul-Iman as it was penned by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, with ill-mannered language and extremism. Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was afraid of such Uqabir/Aaimah: “Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "I only fear for my Ummah from the misguiding A'immah." He said that the Messenger of Allah  said: "There will never cease to be a group from my Ummah ..." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2229, here.] Those who filled in shoes of these evil men and likewise showed nothing sort of concern and cycle has continued ever since. (iii) None thought that a prominent Shaykh using ill-mannered language about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other revered personalities might encourage readers to use these ill-mannered words in relationship to them consequently Shaykh Thanvi had this to write: “In Taqwiyat ul-Iman in some places those harsh/sakht words were employed, those then were cure for the ignorance of (people that belonged to that) period. Like in Quran Majeed against those who believed Isa (alayhis salam) as an Ilah … but present the habit of some (people) is that they employ these words without need; this is without doubt bay-adabi (lacking-respect) and gustakhi (insult).” [Ref: Imdad ul-Fatwa, Volume5, Page389, here.] (iv) No sense hit them on the teeth about danger of presenting minor Shirk as major Shirk. They all knew this is gross distortion of Islamic teachings regarding Shirk and an evil Biddah/Sunnah and despite it these Shayateen took no action against. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said regarding one who witnesses an evil: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: “Whoever among you sees an evil action, and he is able to change it with his hand, then change it with his hand (by taking action); if he cannot, (do so) with his tongue then with his tongue (by speaking out); and if he cannot then with his heart (by hating it and feeling that it is wrong), and that is the weakest of faith.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H1275, here.] These men not only ignored the prophetic guidance but deliberately chose to go against teaching Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by supporting evil and encouraging him to publish evil as he penned it. (v) Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “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] Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi authored Taqwiyat ul-Iman, those who voted to publish it with ill-mannered language and distortion of Islamic teaching of Shirk, those defend ill-mannered language, and those who accept it as legitimate, valid, polite, respectful language are all equally responsible in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We Muslims make no distinction between them as well.

3.0 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Problematic Statement In Urdu And English:

“ … 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] “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]

3.1 – The Literal Obvious Meaning And Deobandi Mullahism’s Delusion:

Literal, apparent, obvious, first to smack reader in the face meaning of words: “Yehni mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon …” and which 99.99999% Urdu speakers will translate and understand Shaykh Dehalvi’s statement as: “Meaning, I will one day die (and) mix into dust (after decay).” Other 00.00001% who may manage to suppress and shove their innate understanding of controversial statement in deepest recesses of their consciousness and after much coaching might without guilt manage to naturally understand it as, I will one day die (and) meet with dust, or something similar in meaning. Their hearts know truth about unmolested untaught meaning of this statement but their tongues and pens lie. It is this knowledge due to which they will never themselves use this language about Prophets, and Saliheen. Somehow they delusionally believe making assigning special meanings to such statements in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and reasoning innocence of one who used this language about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is without blame/sin.

4.0 - Mullah Zameel Doing What Deobandis Do Best:

“In Taqwiyat al-Īmān (p. 88) of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, we find the following passage: LINK. The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān firstly quotes a ḥadīth (from Mishkāt, Sunan Abī Dāwūd). The ḥadīth is as follows: … (Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2140, Badhl al-Majhūd, 8:75) The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary: ‘Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only for the Holy Being that never dies. It is realized from this ḥadīth that prostration is not made to anyone living or dead, nor to a grave or a site, because whoever is living will one day die and whoever died was once living & held within the confines of human-ness. When he then dies, he does not become God. He remains only a slave.’ (Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 88) The Prophet asked: “What do you suppose, if you were to pass by my grave would you prostrate to it?” The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān explains this question and the subsequent warning as follows: “Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to?” “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave. This is clearly stated as one of its meanings in authoritative Urdu dictionaries. According to Fayrūz-ul-Lughāt, p. 1203: LINK. As stated, one of the meanings of the idiom “to put into contact with soil” is: “to bury”. The same is found in Nūr-ul-Lughāt, vol. 4 p. 487: LINK. In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī …”

4.1 - Mullah Zameel Caught Red Handed:

(i) Mullah Zameel the Dalal writes: “… so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to?” “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave. This is clearly stated as one of its meanings …” How desperate one has to be to knowingly mistranslate words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman?  To begin with mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust), does not convey meaning of as mein bi aik din mar kar mitti say milnay wala hoon (one day after death I will come into contact with dust). Mullah Zameel did not have the academic integrity to translate idiomatic expression on its apparent literal, common parlance (i.e. Urf Aam) meaning instead he translated it according Taweel of word mein which was originally advanced by Shaykh Gangohi. (ii) Despite Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi advancing mein’s alternative meaning he acknowledges: “Mitti mein milnay kay do mani hen, aik ye kay mitti ho kar, mitti zameen kay sath khalt ho jaway, jaisay sab ishya zameen mein parr kar, khaq ho kar, zameen hi ban jaati hen.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] Translation: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings, one (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth.” Something which Mullah Zameel does not mention. Why? (iii) For now Shaykh Gangohi’s acknowledgment is consequential and it requires Shar’ri evidence to demand a just verdict. Shar’ri evidence based argument against phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is in sections 8.1 to 8.2, please look into it. (iv) Shaykh Gangohi’s second meaning ascribed to phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) is alternative meaning based and is source on which Mullah Zameel based his translation will be addressed in its right place (addressed in 17.0 to 17.6).  

4.2 – Truth Came From Barelwism.WP And AskImam.Org And Lie Is Exposed:

(i) Mullah Zameel will not getting away with crime of dishonest translation.  (ii) AskImam a Deobandi FATWA website was asked about this very statement and they translated Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s relevant portion as: “Explanation – the meaning (of the statement: “If you were to pass by my grave, would you prostrate in front of it?”) is that “I am also to die and mix in sand one day, so how can you prostrate before me? Sajdah is only performed before the Being that does not die”. This Ḥadῑth tells us ...” I quote Mufti Ibrahim Desai’s checked translation of controversial statement: “… wherein he interpreted the words of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam to mean: … “I will also die and mix in sand one day.” If Ḥadhrat Moulānā Shāh Ismāῑl raḥmatullāhi alayh meant that the Prophet sallallāhu alayhi wasallam’s body shall become sand just as the bodies of ordinary human beings shall turn to sand, then this statement is obviously an objectionable statement …” I had to remove Urdu text. IF you like please visit, here, directly and see it on the original websites. (iii) Mullah Zameel actually copied entire Fatwa from AskImam onto Barelwism WordPress, here. Readers please visit following Scribd to see screen images of AskImam on BarelwismWP IF it has been removed, here. There your eyes will behold, the apparent, literal, common parlance (i.e. Urf Aam) translation of phrase mein bi aik din mein bi mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). (iv) Mullah Zameel was telling you it means: “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave.” Liars can never tell perfect lie and this Mullah is no good at it. Mufti Desai’s checked translation is on its apparent literal meaning which every reader of original Urdu statement will understand than preceded to argue his alternative meaning which is same as Mullah Zameel’s Taweel.

5.0 - Let There Be Judge Between Us – Ask Urdu Speaking Public Challenge:

(i) Someone would say: Muhammed Ali you’re biased too. How can we put our trust in what you say when you’re saying Mullah should not be trusted? You have no reason to especially when I am a commoner VS. Mullah but I have solution. (ii) Find any Urdu speaker. (1) You ask him/her what do these words mean: mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust)? You do not need to share, who wrote it, or about whom or controversy around it, just plain old innocent question. You want to your source of information to be neutral. Ninety-five to ninety-eight percent Urdu speakers have no knowledge regarding controversy surrounding these words. This includes over-whelming majority claiming Deobandi, or Sunni label. For sake of investigation you do not approach anyone ascribing to Deobandi, or Sunni (Barelwi) label. This will earn you neutral and unbiased insight about this controversial statement. I have done this research with tens of people and I have got nothing except same. In other words, one day I will die and mix into dust. IF you want to broaden the research please ask this question as well: (2) Do the words mein bi aik din mitti mein milna/milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) means the same as, mein bi aik din mitti say milna/milnay wala hoon (one day I will after death come into contact with dust)? And IF you really want to get into it than also ask: (3) Do the words mein bi aik din mitti mein milna/milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) mean same as, mein bi aik din dafnaya janay wala hoon (One day I will too be buried). Furthermore enquire: (4) Suppose in dictionaries IF mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) means to be buried than is it acceptable to say about someone’s death and burial as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala/walay apni jaga pounch gaya/gay (one/those who die and mixes into dust has/have reached his/their destination)? Furthermore inquire: (5) IF words mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) were employed about burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would they be polite referrence to his burial or disrespectful and insulting? The very last: (6) IF we were prohibited in Quran to use words which could be distorted to insult and which could actually be dishonouring the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would you consider mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) these type of prohibited words?

5.1 - One JOOTA On My Head, Each, Answer Contradicting Muslim Stance:

(i) We Muslims have argue: ‘Natural, obvious, literal, apparent meaning of controversial part of statement is to mix into dust/soil and this is the meaning 99.99% Urdu speakers will gravitate toward. And even those who look into dictionary and see other meanings will FIND the usage of phrase repugnant and insulting.’ (ii) IF you do your research, 50/100 persons. When it is established a quarter goes against what Muslims have argued against Deobandis, no let’s make it easy, 5/10, than you contact me via private message of IslamiMehfil, or on my UK mobile, +44 7707 333 278. I will take one JOOTA (shoe) smack on my head for each answer that undermined stance represented by Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammat without retaliation. I will not demand you submit me evidence that you carried out research. I will take your word as the TRUTH. IF your research supports Muslim stance against Deobandis than FIND Mullah Zameel and deliver JOOTA smacks on his head. That is optional no compulsion. (iii) IF Mullah Zameel counter challenges saying he will happily get JOOTA smacked on his head for every answer undermining his position than I will carry out this research using the above six questions and record this investigation and upload it on YouTube. What I do also assure you I will not be smacking him with JOOTA’S due to results. I will leave it upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to exact His revenge and punish Mullah Zameel. Not because I am , have amazing super righteous manners, not at all; because I want him to endure all the pain of hell that is his due. All I want him to do is to demonstrate his confidence in his stance. IF someone else does the same research and he earns the right to rain JOOTA’S on Mullah’s head than I am not part of it. (iv) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “There is no trouble that comes to a believer except that it obliterates from his sins, even if it is the pricking of a thorn.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6239, here.]

5.2 – Another Less Demanding Truth Finding Challenge To Mullah Zameel:

(i) I have another suggestion. Mullah Zameel why don’t you and I write names five UK immigrant population dense cities on paper and put them into a box. Give box a good shake. Grab a random individual and ask him to draw one chit out. We both head to that city with our cameras and hit busy shopping area frequented by Indian, Pakistani Muslim community. Take a dice, roll it, to ensure our selection of people we question is at random and to ensure you/I have not lined up coached individuals to represent Deobandi, or Sunni (Barelwi) positions. We inquire about statement in dispute between Muslims and Deobandis, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). We can both arrange a number between 25/50/100 persons we can investigate than upload our recordings on YouTube. (ii) I have 100% confidence there will not be a single person who will say it means, mar kar mitti say milnay wala (one who after death come into contact with dust). Without doubt every single person will say, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala, conveys meaning of one whom is to die and mix into dust. (iii) Rest assured NO Deobandi Mullah worth academic salt will agree to what I have purposed and IF someone does it will be conditioned by impossible qualifiers to avoid engaging in a joint investigation. They are all aware FALSEHOOD they support and know such would be exercise in Deobandism’s very public humiliation. What I expect is MUNAZRA challenge on par with subcontinent standards. I demonstrate what mean in a parable: All out pub brawl between barely dressed drunk women ending upon no clothes equivalent. For an ego they expose themselves as idiots and shameless. That is the type of Munazra challenge I will be challenged to engage in IF any.

6.0 - Addressing Mitti Mein Milnay Translated As IF It Is, Mitti Say Milnay:

(i) Mullah translates controversial Taqwiyat ul-Iman statement: “The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary: ‘Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only for the …”  Mullah Zameel is insinuating words, mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) mean mitti say milna/milaana (‘come into contact with soil’ and ‘to make someone come into contact with soil’). This made me chuckle. (ii) The dictionary references he quoted are not directly referencing, mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil), instead are referencing a closer meaning idiom mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) which is not problematic. (iii) Two dictionaries he employed to justify his claimed meaning (i.e. burial in grave) none has stated mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) means/should be understood as/is alternative of mitti say milnay wala (one to come into contact with soil), here and here. IF mein was in meaning of say than why no linguist ever made this connection? Considering linguists have recorded both idioms mitti mein/say milna (to mix into soil/to touch soil) mean burial of dead in grave so why not this BAKWAS that mitti mein milna (to mix in soil) should be understood as mitti say milna (to touch soil)? I will reveal reason why. (iv) Reason is obvious. One is used as expression of insult, disrespect and degradation while other is respectful and polite hence linguists would not put the two in same bowl. One is, and other is: (1) You’re Paki. VS. You’re Pakistani. (2) You’re born out of wedlock hence you are not entitled to inheritance. VS. You’re bastard hence you’re not entitled to inheritance. That is the difference between mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) and mitti say milnay wala (one to come into contact with soil).

6.1 - Mullah’s Dishonesty -  Selecting Furthest Over Closest Idiom To Hide Truth:

(i) Words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used mitti mein milnay closest are referrence is, mitti mein mil jana (milna), in Feroz ul-Lughat, page 1203, here. Compiler has placed (milna) in brackets to impart that mitti mein mil jana (to mix into soil) and mitti mein milna (to mix into soil) both have same meanings. Urdu readers can access the link and English-only readers translation of what is in there will be provided in a bit. (ii) Words milna is singular and milnay is plural. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used plural hence it is the closest to what Shaykh Dehalvi used. Hence mitti mein milna variation would have been the best candidate to understand in light of dictionary the meaning of mitti mein milnay and not mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust). (iii) The academic shamelessness has home in Deoband. He quotes mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) and takes a snippet of his reference, Feroz ul-Lughat, page 1203, here. You can see snippet on his blog as well. Why the snippet? Because right above the snippet Feroz ul-Lughat page 1203 has entry, mitti mein mil jana (milna) and it has been explained as: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: “to mix in to soil, body turning into soil, to spoil (as in decomposition sense), going bad/off.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] There is no reference to burial of deceased in a grave. You can literally see both mitti mein mil jana (milna) and mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) one after the other in Feroz ul-Lughat page 1203 in links provided. This is called damage control and academic dishonesty. (iv) Mullah Zameel may argue but I quoted and provided snippet of my reference that’s not dishonesty and deception. Yes but concealed part which harmed his cause. Do you not read Jews revealed a bit and concealed the other to damage control: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] “Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know (it).” [Ref: Q2:146] IF you’re aware than why are you behaving like your Deobandi Uqabir and why conceal portion of book like Yahud? This wasn’t an innocent act but rather a willful, deliberate, planned attempt to hide damaging information. I will mutilate and butcher Allamah Iqbal’s poetical verses: ‘Qalb mein soz nahin, rooh mein ihsas nahin. Kuch hi paygham e Muhmmad ka tummen pass nahin.’ (Heart is without care/pain, soul is without empathy. You have no respect for message of Muhammad.) ‘Wa’za mein tum ho nasara to tamaddun mein ho Hunood. Ye Mullah Zameel jinnay dekh kay sharmahen Mullah Yahood.’ (In behaviour you’re Christian, in societal norms you’re Hindu. This Mullah Zameel causes the Mullah of Jews to be embarrassed.)

6.2 - Mullah’s Dishonesty  Selecting One Over Others For Mitti Mein Milaana:

Feroz ul-Lughat, pages 1203: “Mitti mein milaana -: Idiom: - To mix with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicate every sign of existence, to bury, tasteless/enjoy-less, to waste, to loose (an item  sense). “ [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] Idiom mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) having meanings of to bury deceased, or burial of deceased and it is supported by other dictionaries also, here, here. Same phrase mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) in Jhangir ul-Lughat has no mention of burial: “Idiom -: Mitti mein milaana -: To mix/integrate with dust, to annoy, to destroy, to eradicating from existence, joyless/tasteless, to waste.” [Ref: Jhangir ul-Lughat, Page 1348, by Wasi-Ullah Khokhar, here.] Why one grammarian and linguist did not add meaning of burial of deceased as part of this phrase? You’re entitled to your speculations in this regard. Based on absence of burial in grave meaning I am in my right to argue not all grammarians and linguists are confident mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) means burial. You also must ask: Why Deobandi scholarship is omitting/concealing mention of sources which undermine their position? I let the readers decide IF Mullah Zameel is practicing his Deobandi Akabir’s evil Sunnah or not?

7.0 - Mitti Mein Milnay, And Mitti Mein Milaana Denoting Burial OF Deceased In Grave:

(i) Mufti Zameel’s quoted references do support that there is overlapping of meaning between mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) and words used in Taqwiyat ul-Iman, mitti mein milnay/milna (to mix into dust). This is because both idiomatic expression share common root derivatives hence commonality of meaning. I want to spell this out Deobandi Mullah has done nothing wrong by using near enough idiomatic expression to clarify meaning of, mitti mein milnay/milna, nothing wrong whatsoever. This is a standard practice when engaging in linguistic analysis of words. (ii) That being said, question arises how and why the words, mitti mein; milna, milnay, milaana, milaanay are synonymous with burial in grave? Why Mullah Zameel? Why?

7.1 - Why Mitti Mein Milna And Milaana Are Synonymous With Burial In Grave:

(i) Scenario: Shaykh Thanvi and his Abba died. They were buried with very little song and dance. In days their bodies began to decompose, rot, and smell. Acids in their stomachs produced so much gas in their intestines that their stomachs exploded and over time decomposition did its job. From dust they came to dust they returned. Meaning mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) died and mitti mein mil gaya (has mixed into dust). Mitti ka putla mar kar mitti mein mil gay (clay figure died and mixed into dust as clay). (ii) Mitti mein milna/milaana (to mix into dust/to mix another into dust) are synonymous with burial of deceased because when body is put in grave it decomposes to such an extent that there remains no distinction between soil/clay and between remains of deceased person’s body except skeleton. All other biological matter in grave becomes soil, clay, dust hence why mar kar mitti mein milna (to mix into dust after death) and mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) are idiomatic expression of burial. (iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “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.] Hence this idiomatic expression had/has no VALID basis to describe death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). (iv) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has expressly prohibited to address the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in manners how we all reference each other: “Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So …” [Ref: Q24:63]

7.2 - Mitti Mein Milna Idiomatic Expression Is Used In Hate And Contempt:

This language is not used for someone whom a person’s loves and respects. When it is used by one for another than it is employed in regards to an enemy, or in regards to extremely hated person. It is always used in an attempt to degrade, insult, disrespect and as show of contemptuous rage directed toward living/deceased. This is why no Deobandi ever uses these words to describe burial of his own Abba Ji as, mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (has died and mixed into dust). Nor describes impending death and burial of loved and respected Amma Ji as, mar kar mitti mein milnay wali heh (will die and will mixed into dust). There are exceptional usages such as when it is used about one’s own self. In this context it conveys sense of self-deprecating humility especially in poetical verses.

7.3 - Do As You Say With Your Own Senior Scholarship And Loved Ones:

(i) Mar kar mitti mein milna (to mix into dust after death), and mar kar mitti mein milgaya (died and mixed into dust), and tens of other relating variations can be used by Muslims while mentioning burial of Deobandi Shuyukh. I advise Deobandis to use phrases like, mar kar mitti mein mil-gaya (died and mixed into dust) mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) type of language due to your Shuyukh like -: Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Hussain Ahmad Madani, Manzoor Ahmad Nomani, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, Murtaza Hassan Dharbangi, Abdul Shakoor Lakhnavi, Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, Ismail Dehalvi, Qasim Nanotavi, Ghulamullah Khan, Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Abdullah Darkhawasti, Atta-Ullah Shah Bukhari, and others like them. What is the harm in using such language about these Mullahs when it only means burial in grave? No harm whatsoever. (ii) There are two reasons I advise Deobandis to engage in this righteous act: (1) It will demonstrate you genuinely believe usage of these words is absolutely blameless, (2) and because these words quite accurately describe what is expected to happen to bodies of those who insulted and stood with one whom insulted and disrespected of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) Mullah Zameel the Kameena I suggest you go and describe your Abbas’s death and burial, or potential of it, with language you are legitimizing and promoting as blameless in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) such as - mar kar mitti mein -; mil gaya, milnay wala etc. Don’t you dare squeal than charge: ‘You’re being abusive and encouraging people to insult and abuse our senior scholarship and my much loved Abba Ji (rahima-hu-llah). ’

8.0 - Mitti Mein Milna, According To Dictionary Means, Burial In A Grave:

(i) Mullah Zameel ar-Rahman says: “… so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to?” “Mittī mein milne wālā” (come into contact with soil) in this context simply means to be buried and confined to the grave. This is clearly stated as one of its meanings in authoritative Urdu dictionaries. According to Fayrūz-ul-Lughāt, p. 1203: LINK. As stated, one of the meanings of the idiom “to put into contact with soil” is: “to bury”. The same is found in Nūr-ul-Lughāt, vol. 4 p. 487: LINK. In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī …” There can be no denial dictionaries state mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust), and other variations of this idiomatic expression mean burial of deceased in grave but this is not concrete amongst linguists as demonstrated in sections 6.2 of this article. The only direct reference to mitti mein milnay is mitti mein mil jana (milna) in Feroz ul-Lughat, here, which mentions no burial of deceased in grave or any similar meaning. Khaq is another word for mitti. In Noor ul-Lughat which Mullah Zameel himself referenced contains khaq mein milna and it has meaning of burial in grave, here. This why I will not be extra judicial about meaning of mitti mein milna/milnay not meaning burial in grave. Instead we will allow that it also means burial of deceased in grave on account of similarity of it with similar expressions as well as khaq mein milna.

8.1 - Mullah Is Reminded - Do Not Say Ra’ina But To Say UnZurna:

(i) Previously origin of this idiomatic expression was explained including why such, and when such expressions are used in sections 7.1 to 7.2. Now it is time to respond to Mullah Zameel in light of Quran. (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the believers: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Following is interpretation is by Imam Jalal al-Deen Mahalli: “O you who believe do not say to the Prophet s ‘Observe us’ rā‘inā is an imperative form from murā‘āt which they used to say to him and this was a derogatory term in Hebrew derived from the noun al-ru‘ūna ‘thoughtlessness’. They found this very amusing and used to address the Prophet s in this way and so the believers were forbidden to use it; but say instead ‘Regard us’ that is look at us and give ear to what you are commanded and be prepared to accept it; and for disbelievers awaits a painful chastisement that is the Fire.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q2:104, here.] Tafsir by al-Wahidi has following explanation: “(O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): “Listen to us” (ra‘ina) …” (2:104). Said Ibn Abbas according to the narration of ‘Ata’: “This is because the Arabs used to employ this expression (ra‘ina), so when the Jews heard them using it with the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, they liked it. This same expression in the parlance of the Jews had the connotation of vile abusive language. They said: ‘Before, we used to abuse Muhammad secretly. Now, you can abuse him openly because this expression is used in their speech’. Therefore, they used to come to Allah’s Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and say: ‘O Muhammad! ra‘ina’, and the they would laugh. A man from the Helpers — Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubadah who understood well the language of the Jews—understood the reason. He said to them: ‘O enemies of Allah! May Allah’s curse be on you. By Him in Whose Hand is Muhammad’s soul, I will cut the head of any man of you who utters this expression’. They objected, saying: ‘But do you not use the same expression with him?’ And therefore Allah, exalted is He, revealed: (O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): “Listen to us” (ra‘ina) but say “Look upon us” (unzurna) ...” [Ref: Tafsir Asbab al-Nuzul, 2:104, here.] Readers are also advised to look into Tafsir by Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahima-hu-llah), here. I have not quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir because contents related to verse are in large quantity.

8.2 - Ra’ina And Unzurna In Tafasir And Injunction Derived From Ayah:

Tafasir establish Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited usage of perfectly legitimate none insulting word when addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) on account of Jews distorting and employing it to insult/mock Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In contrast to Ra’ina words, mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) are used in meaning of burial in grave (because body decays to dust in grave) as well as in contemptuous literal meaning of mixing into dust. Mitti mein milna, milnay, milaana, milaanay are frequently used in abusive, insulting, degrading tone and used as such about a hated individual and one held in contempt by speaker. Hence idiomatic usage of mitti mein milna/milnay (one to be mixed into dust/soil) in regards to describing death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are prohibited by greater degree when compared to Ra’ina. What do the Deobandis want you to believe about mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust)? It is harmless expression meaning burial in grave while totally ignoring and Ayaat quoted above and their injunctions.

8.3 - Deobandis Demonstrated Two Hundred Years OF Khohta Level Intellect:

Have they not computed Ayah: Do not say Ra’ina? Not a single Deobandi in two hundred years history of Taqwiyat ul-Iman has said: ‘Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi did not intend literal death and decomposition leading to dust stage. Shaykh Dehalvi intended burial in grave meaning of words, mitti mein milnay wala hoon (one to be mixed into dust/soil). We know Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has prohibited usage of words like, Ra’ina, which can be distorted to insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Hence after deep reflection and contemplation about words mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) I have come to conclusion these words should not be used by us, nor should not be provided legitimacy through argumentation, because it’s literal apparent meaning denotes disrespect especially when used in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And we are prohibited to use such words and language for the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in verse of Ra’ina. Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed us to use words which are innocent possible insulting connotations in His instruction to use Unzurna.’ Two hundred years history and Kafireen haven’t realized, internalized and believed in Qur’anic verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] All these FARMI Mullahs have prioritised their much beloved grand Abba Ji Shaykh Dehalvi’s and Maslak’s academic Izzat (standing) above their own Iman/Islam and of Muslims in general.

9.0 – Mitti Mein Milnay Wala Weapon OF Mass/Open Insult In Hand OF Christians:

Imagine Christian missionaries - like Sam Shamoun, Jay Smith and others getting wind of these words. How they would insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) right in your face. How will one Kafir protest to another Kafir? Deobandi: ‘You’re insulting Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).’ When insulting Kafir will quote you Taqwiyat ul-Iman and distortions minted by your Deobandi scholarship to justify insults and abuse hurled at the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then how will you be justified in your protest? Would you even protest? I very much doubt it. You will celebrate your victory over the Barelwis. Farmi Deobandi Mullah on YouTube: ‘Even Christians accept and support our stance in regards to mitti mein milnay/milna against Barelwi grave-worshipping Mushrikeen. Sam Shamoun as a neutral true academic scholar too has agreed with us that using these words about Prophet Muhammad is not insulting. This proves our Ahle Haq scholarship is on level which is appreciated internationally.’ This is what I expect you Masjid Chanda moochers to engage in without caring for Iman and Islam of others or your own.

9.1 - Rise Above Your Faction’s Truth And Judge The Matter In Light Of Islam:

(i) This issue is not about Deobandi VS. Barelwi. Or who wrote and how we will trash him. Or whose Mullahs are champions of Munazra Kushti hall. This is about standing-up to honour and respect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This is about holding those who insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) accountable. And to prevent others from engaging in same insults, abuse and disrespect using what Deobandi scholarship has HALAL-ED with their Taweelaat. Don’t support or defend Deobandi or Barelwi. The controversy is about saving Iman and Islam of Muslims including those who claim Deobandism as label. IF you see this issue as any other you’re lost in maze of deception and confusion created by Mullahs. Ignore all and judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and all will be clear: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best (way) and best in result.” [Ref: Q4:59] The book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) records: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] “They say, "If we return to al-Madinah, the more honoured (for power) will surely expel therefrom the more humble." And to Allah belongs (all) honour, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know.” [Ref: Q63:8] Honour Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as they should be and avoid any word which can even be distorted to dishonour them.

10.0 - Mullah Referencing Shaykh Gangohi’s Taweel Of Mitti Mein Milna:

(i) Mullah writes: “In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī explained: “Mawlānā Marḥūm (i.e. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd) also believed that the bodies of the prophets (upon them peace) will not turn to dust since soil encompasses the deceased person from all sides, and the soil beneath the deceased joins the body with the shroud, this is called ‘meeting/joining/coming into contact with the soil.’ There is nothing objectionable (in this).” (Ta’līfāt Rashīdiyyah, p. 111 -: here) An almost identical explanation to that of ….” (ii) It is shame Mullah does not actually summarize, nor translate in entirety what Shaykh Gangohi wrote. Those who can read Urdu will be able notice missing content in translation. As much as Mullah Bad-Damagh attempted he conveyed meaning of Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa in his own words than direct translation and he brought to prominence what was alluded to by Shaykh Gangohi.

10.1 – My Conspiracy Theory Mullah Hiding Truth To Keep Cat In Deception Bag:

(i) Mullah did not translate the entirety of Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa because he has translated, mitti mein milnay (to mix into soil), as IF he is translating words, mitti say milnay (come into contact with soil). Had he translated and provided summary of entire Fatwa than all game would be exposed to his English readers. In absence of entire Fatwa it is easier to subject English speakers to pre-prepared and well-rehearsed: “Shaykh Dehalvi’s words are absolutely innocent and these are our proofs.” (ii) Shaykh Gangohi writes: “Mitti mein milnay kay do mani hen, aik ye kay mitti ho kar, mitti zameen kay sath khalt ho jaway, jaisay sab ishya zameen mein parr kar, khaq ho kar, zameen hi ban jaati hen.Dosra …” Translation: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Second …” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] These words of Shaykh Gangohi are enough to demonstrate words of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi are not innocent as Deobandis are portraying them to be.

11.0 - Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s Fatwa Under The Microscope:

Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s second meaning and how he derived it will be addressed comprehensively just in a bit but first translation of entire Fatwa. Mullah presented: “In his Fatāwā, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī explained: “Mawlānā Marḥūm (i.e. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd) also believed that the bodies of the prophets (upon them peace) will not turn to dust since soil encompasses the deceased person from all sides, and the soil beneath the deceased joins the body with the shroud, this is called ‘meeting/joining/coming into contact with the soil.’ There is nothing objectionable (in this).” (Ta’līfāt Rashīdiyyah, p. 111 -: here) An almost identical explanation to that of …” Actual translation of entire Fatwa: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And deceased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too convinced in bodies of Prophets (alayhis salam) NOT turning into dust. Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil – this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana. There is no (reason for any) objection.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.]

11.1 - Shaykh Dehalvi Believed Bodies OF Prophets Do Not Turn To Dust:

Shaykh Gangohi writes: “Mawlānā Marḥūm (i.e. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd) also believed that the bodies of the prophets (upon them peace) will not turn to dust …” Shaykh Gangohi did not provide any supporting evidence but that does not mean there is none to substantiate his claim. Evidence and what its worth in this discussion will be addressed in due time (see section 13.0).

11.2 - Shaykh Gangohi Doing The Tight Rope Walk:

(i) Shaykh Gangohi begins by telling us that meaning of mitti mein milna is: “… to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil).” Than he realizes mitti say mil jana (to come into contact with soil) to explain mitti mein milna (to mix into soil) is not enough because one indicates mixing into soil while other indicates portion of body touching soil. He after telling Shaykh Dehalvi believed in incorruptibility of bodies of Prophets after their deaths adds explanation why mitti mein –: milna (to mix into soil), mil-jana (to mix into soil), milaana (to mix another into soil) are used as expression meaning burial: “Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil; this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana.” (ii) This is a cheap shameless attempt by Shaykh Gangohi to distort how and why the expressions mitti mein milna, milaana, mil-jana arose and why they are used. Metaphorically speaking I will beat Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi with Mullah’s shoe. (iii) Mullah Zameel employed Noor ul-Lughat and while studying his specific referrence and generally the entire page I encountered this golden nugget: “Mitti hona (to become soil) – Khaq mein milna (to mix into soil) -: To turn into dust. (Metaphorical:) To break/decompose. (Poet – Aatish:) For sake of God, O Sky hand it over. Slowly in time my coffin may not turn to soil.” [Ref: Noor ul-Lughat, Volume 4, Page 487, here.] Poet has alluded to body turning to soil after decomposition and compiler of Noor ul-Lughat has added this poetical verse to explain meaning of mitti hona (to turn into soil) and khaq/mitti mein milna (to mix into soil). This establishes usage of expression mitti/khaq mein -: milna (to mix into soil), milaana (to mix another into soil), mil jana (to mix into soil), mitti hona (to turn into soil) and many other variations are used due to what happens to body in grave and not as Shaykh two eyed blind Dajjal said: “Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil; this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana.” This is how TRUTH is revealed when two liars conspire against such a obvious truth. (iv) Can word MEIN be used in meaning of SAY and IF yes than when? This is obvious elephant in the room which I have deliberately not addressed because it was brought in discussion up by Mullah near the end of his article and that is where it will be addressed. This point was comprehensively addressed in 17.0 to 17.6.

11.3 - Shaykh Gangohi And Blind Following Him Provide Proof IF You’re Upon Truth:

(i) I dare to challenge Deobandis and Mullah to quote me a poetical verse of Urdu, or a work pre-dating Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa in which writer has said/indicates words mitti mein -: milna (to mix into soil), milaana (to mix another into soil), mil jana (to mix into soil)… are used in meaning of burial because body is in contact with soil and due to it is encompassed by soil. There is no such evidence supporting Shaykh Gangohi’s BATIL Taweel. (ii) Why condition of pre-dating Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwah? They invent their own meanings of words, phrases, and at time insert words into sentences which were not part of them on account of lie told by a Mullah century ago. Those who follow the blind as blind than go on to insert these meanings into dictionaries and when re-printing books of influential scholars of past few centuries and than say: This is from that Allamah. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say: “Woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands, and then declare, This is from God, in order to sell it for a paltry price. Woe to them because of what their own hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned .” [Ref: Q2:79] This Ayah is about what the worst of mankind did but Deobandi Mullahs are not FAR behind.

11.4 – Shaykh Gangohi’s True Minhaj And His Exception From Islamic Norm:

(i) Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi was enquired about legality of poets calling Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a statue, or an idol, and about saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is: Ashob tark fitnah e Arab (an Arab tribulation which ends tribulations). Shaykh Gangohi responds: “Speaker of these ill words even though does not intend literal in meaning of obvious/apparent sense (of words used) but instead uses them in figurative sense. Despite it is not free of insinuation of insult, disrespect and (not free of causing) grief to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This is reason due to which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited the companions to desist using word Ra’ina and instead instructed them to use Unzurna. Even though companions (Allah be pleased with them all) did not use it as the Jews employed it for. But it was way in which Jews acted mischievously and (it contained) insinuation of griefing and insult of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore injunction was issued: “Do not say Ra’ina (consider us) instead say Unzurna (look upon us).” [Ref: Fatawah Rasheedia, Complete In-One-Volume, Dar ul-Ishaat, Page204, here.] I have only quoted partial Fatwah of Shaykh Gangohi but complete Fatwa is available in Urdu and on link provided. (ii) This Fatwa is what a Muslim should say, a scholar should say, and Muslims expects like of Shaykh Gangohi to say about words which are insinuating insult and disrespect of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) Allamah Arshad ul-Qadri (rahima-hu-llah) in his two gems published as Zalzala, here, and as Zair o Zabr, here, expertly exposed the double standard Deobandi scholarship is engaged in. Matters which Deobandi scholarship declares Shirk, Kufr, and Biddah when targeting Muslims are all in accordance with Tawheed, Islam, and Shari’ah when a Deobandi scholar or a close associate is associated with it. (iv) In this vein Shaykh Gangohi is no different practicing this double standard. When Shaykh Dehalvi described Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) Shaykh Gangohi didn’t say these words are insinuating disrespect and are insulting in their tone nor warned usage of such words could invalidate good deeds, nor warned usage of these words is akin to saying Ra’ina, nothing as such. What did the Shaykh Gangohi do? He engaged in Taweel: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And deceased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too convinced in bodies of Prophets (alayhis salam) NOT turning into dust. Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil – this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana. There is no (reason for any) objection.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] He did this despite knowing too well prohibitive Hukm on using insulting language; and regarding words which can be misconstrued in a native or another language to insult/disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

11.5 - The Likeness OF Shaykh Gangohi Is OF Jew Scholars And Christian Monks:

(i) This is a man who like scholars of Jews made Haram as Halal; a man who made Ra’ina Halal when he supported and made Taweel of Shaykh Dehalvi’s insulting statement. Those who accepted his Halal against the teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and obeyed Shaykh Gangohi they took him as a Rabb and worshipped him instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] There is no Ilah and Rabb except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and none is deserving of worship except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and any who has another should take note of following: “Indeed you (polytheists) and what you worship other than Allah are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to (enter) it." [Ref: 21:98] (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about one who legislates his/her own rules/laws in compliance with their personal wishes: "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] One who engages in this activity Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says regarding them: “And if any of them should say: ‘Verily, I am a god besides Him (Allah).’ Such a one We should recompense with Hell. Thus We recompense the wrongdoers.” [Ref: 21:29]

12.0 - Leaning On Sharh Tibi Ala Miskhat ul-Masabih And Mirqat ul-Mafatih:

Mullah writes: “An almost identical explanation to that of the author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān was given by Imām al-Ṭībī in his commentary of Mishkāt many centuries prior: LINK. “Meaning, you prostrate to me only out of respect and awe. When I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain. So prostrate to the Ever-Living that does not die, and the One Whose kingdom does not end.” (Sharḥ al-Ṭībī ‘ala ‘l-Mishkāt, p. 2336) The same explanation is reproduced in Mullā ‘Alī Qārī’s Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ. Al-Ṭībī uses the Arabic expression rahīn rams (contained in soil) which is similar to Taqwiyat al-Īmān’s Urdu expression mittī mein milne wālā (come into contact with soil). If that were…”

12.1- Mullah Zameel’s Translation, A Pinnacle Deception And Distortion:

(i) Mullah has presented translation but it is confusing at very least. It states: “When I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain.” Mullah Zameel may not be able to but at the very least attempt to do justice to title of MUFTI. I will keep to Mullah’s translation and ask; what goes away: (1) soil body is contained in, (2) the body goes away, (3) or that high prostration deserving honour, respect and reverence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will leave the heart/mind? What will go-away leading the companion to no-prostration? (ii) I purposed three options but Mullah Zameel already selected second (i.e. body goes away) because throughout this article he repeatedly said Sharh al-Tibi records same as what author of Taqwiyat ul-Iman wrote: (1) “An almost identical explanation to that of the author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān was given by Imām al-Ṭībī in his commentary of Mishkāt many centuries prior …” (2) “Al-Ṭībī uses the Arabic expression rahīn rams (contained in soil) which is similar to Taqwiyat al-Īmān’s Urdu expression mittī mein milne wālā (come into contact with soil).” (3) “(I will die and come into contact with soil), which are similar to the words used by al-Ṭībī and which the Urdu dictionaries show to mean: “to be buried”.” (4) “This context is sufficient to clarify that what Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd meant by “mitti mein milnay wala hoon” is to be buried (just like al-Ṭībī’s “rahin rams”). What further supports this meaning is: …” Shaykh Zameel can only make this claim IF words, and that goes away, and words to mix into dust (mitti mein milna), were returning to same point of referrence in Sharh al-Tibi and Taqwiyat ul-Iman. (iii) To remedy this confusion, about whom the words of Sharh al-Tibi return to, and to cure MUFTI Zameel’s retarded sense of Arabic let a total Arabic novice translate Sharh al-Tibi: “Meaning, you will only prostrate to me now out of honor, reverence, and (my) prestige. If I were contained in grave (and that honor, reverence, prestige in your heart would cease to exist hence) you would abstain from it (i.e. prostrating). So prostrate to the Living One who does not die, and to whose dominion does not fade away." (iv) Here I will present entire point of Sharh al-Tibi in my own words: ‘You’ve high level of love, respect, honour, reverence in your heart for me and that would cease to exist because burial (in a grave). Hence you would not prostrate to me when this happens than why not prostrate to only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Ever-Living and the One who will not die, nor His dominion, reverence, prestige, honour would cease in your heart and mind.’

12.2 - Evidence Against Deliberate Distortion And Deception From His Own:

(i) Evidence against Mullah Zameel’s gross distortion and deception is from his own article where he used the same quote of Sharh al-Tibi but he translated it as: “Meaning, prostrate to the Ever-Living One Who does not die, and Whose Dominion does not end, for you only prostrate to me now out of awe and reverence, for indeed when I am confined to the grave, you will refrain from this.” [Ref: Refuting the Allegation that Shah Isma’il Shahid Denied … here, here.] (ii) Further more Deobandi scholar Shaykh Syed Firdos Shah Qasoori translated the same quote in this way: “Prostrate to that Living (being) one that does not die and whose Kingdom/authority is never-ending. Because at this moment you prostrate to me out of respect due of my prestige but when I am contained in the grave’s soils than you will not to prostate to me.” [Ref: Charag e Sunnat, Page 243, here.] There is no underlined: “… when I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain …” (iii) Mullah Zameel’s Paindu Ghayrat, which is equal to Jahiliyyah Ghayrat, might compel him to unleash Arabic grammar on me. He can try but Mufti Zameel will not be able to  justify his deception and obvious distortion of Sharh al-Tibi.

12.3 – Responding To Claim Shaykh Dehalvi’s Words Are Identical To Sharh al-Tibi:

(i) Mullah Zameel no less than four times claimed words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman are same as words in Sharh al-Tibi: (1) “An almost identical explanation to that …” (2) “… expression rahīn rams (contained in soil) which is similar to Taqwiyat al-Īmān’s …” (3) “(I will die and come into contact with soil), which are similar to the words used by al-Ṭībī and …” (4) “… meant by “mitti mein milnay wala hoon” is to be buried (just like al-Ṭībī’s “rahin rams”).” Mufti Zameel is saying words, (1) mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into soil), (2) mar kar mitti say milnay wala (one who after death come into contact with soil), (3) mar kar mitti mein rakha janay wala are same (one who after death will be contained in soil). I have approximated Arabic rahin rams to mitti mein rakha as per Mufti Zameel’s translation of rahin rams (contained in soil) and than contextualized it into Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s sentence. (ii) This is, Ale you serious light now bro, moment. Mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into soil) having same meaning as being contained in soil raheen rams must be a joke, here. Mullah Munazir e Islam shrooms you’re ingesting paid by Masjid Chanda must be really good at inducing realistic make believe hallucinations. (iii) In a Dajjalic era where men are competing in Olympic sports as women, children are given hormone blockers to change their biological sexual orientation, and FEMALE ascribe to he, him, his, and MALE to she, her, and other freaks claim it, they, them, those as their pronouns. In this era Mufti Ji Zameel ar-Rahman you too can claim I identify mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into soil) as raheen rams. And my pronouns of mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into soil) are as raheen rams. On your side who cares what the truth anyway? They will believe any claptrap you advance in defence of your senior scholarship. On serious note. (iv) Mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into soil) statement literally translated by AskImam.org Deobandi Mufti Mu’adh Chati and checked by senior Deobandi Mufti Ibrahim Desai: “… is that “I am also to die and mix in sand one day, so how can you prostrate before me? Sajdah is only performed ...” Same statement was translated via an alternative meaning of mein to mean say by Mufti Zameel: "The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary: Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only  ..." Sharh al-Tibi statement as dishonestly and deceptively translated by our champion Munazir e Islam Wal Muslimeen Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman: “Meaning, you prostrate to me only out of respect and awe. When I am contained in soil (rahīn rams), and that goes away, you would refrain…” My very own translation:  "Meaning, you will only prostrate to me now out of honor, reverence, and (my) prestige. If I were contained in grave you would abstain from it (i.e. prostrating)..." And as translated by Syed Firdos Shah Qasoori: “… at this moment you prostrate to me out of respect due of my prestige but when I am contained in the grave’s soils than you will not to prostate to me.” Readers please look into both statements and compare all three translations of Sharh al-Tibi with two translations of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Muftri Zameel twice claimed Sharh al-Tibi similar, once claimed it is identical, and once said Taqwiyat ul-Iman is just like Sharh al-Tibi statement.

12.4 - Shaykh Gangohi Exposes Mullah’s Claim That Sharh al-Tibi Is Identical:

(i) Furthermore words used by Shaykh al-Tibi (rahima-hu-llah) have no connotation of insult/disrespect but in contrast words used by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi are insulting and degrading Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Mullah’s lie has been exposed by Shaykh Gangohi: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings, one (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; ….” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] How are words of Sharh al-Tibi identical to words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman? Going by your translation how do words contained in soil same as mix into soil are same? Stop being stupid. Contained in soil has no negative connotations while mixed into soil has. (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is resting in Zameen/land which part of garden of paradise. And soil he was laid to rest in is soil of garden of paradise: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Between my house and my pulpit there is a garden of the gardens of Paradise, and my pulpit is on my fountain tank (i.e. Al-Kauthar)." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H287, here.] For Allamah al-Tibi (rahima-hu-llah) to write Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is contained in soil is not disrespectful in anyway. In contrast Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi is evidence against your lie that Shaykh Dehalvi used similar to Allamah al-Tibi’s (rahima-hu-llah) expression. (iii) Can you demonstrate a single instance where a Arab said/used words raheen rams to mean to mix into dust. Can you provide referrence of a non-Deobandi Arab scholar who has said raheen rams in Sharh al-Tibi means mixing into soil as well as being contained in soil. In absence of evidence demonstrating such usage how can you claim it is similar to mitti mein milna (to mix into soil)? Have you no FEAR of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

12.5 - Why Mullah Zameel Distorted And Engaged In Evil Sunnah Of His Akabir:

(i) You have to question why did Mullah added, and that goes away, into Sharh al-Tibi? What objective of Mullah Zameel would be achieved IF these words were in Sharh al-Tibi? Mufti Zameel added underlined words to Sharh al-Tibi in order to insinuate just like Shaykh Dehalvi said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) Shaykh al-Tibi (rahima-hu-llah) also stated nothing of blessed body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would remain. (ii) How disgusting one has to be to lie, deceive, distort and slander a righteous scholar? How disgraced are do you have to be to engage in lying, deception, distortion so you can continue to practice and enable others see nothing wrong in saying about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust).  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “In the end of time there shall come men who will swindle the world with religion, deceiving the people in soft skins of sheep, their tongues are sweeter than sugar and their hearts are the hearts of wolves.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B10, H2404, here.]

13.0 - Addressing Shaykh In Mathnavi Noor Salik Said Prophet’s Body Is Preserved:

(i) Mullah writes: “… mittī mein milne wālā (come into contact with soil). If that were not clear enough, the author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān has another work, a poem called Mathnawī Silk Nūr, in which he makes it clear that his belief is that the blessed body of the Prophet is preserved. For documentation, …” Mufti Zameel provided two links where the poetical verses can be accessed but I will link one, here. Here is the rarely seen always heard, Mathnavi Noor e Salik, here. I checked and reference is correct but translation provided by Mufti Zameel and Mufti Muadh Chati is incorrect due to Jahl: “Although seemingly that pure body is hidden from these eyes beneath the earth. Nonetheless, its light stands in its place, as there is a place for it in every sound heart.” Jahl is to translate words qaim maqam as stands in its place. Feroz ul-Lughat indicates meaning of Qaim Maqam, here. How I translated it: “From these eyes in every way that body is Pak (i.e. protected). The Hidden, apparently is below the soil/earth. But Noor is his qaim maqam (i.e. successor). In every pure heart is his maqam (place).” Shaykh Dehalvi is saying that body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is hidden out of sight because he is buried below the or in the soil/earth. As of now the Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is acting as his successor and that Noor exists in every pure heart. Which IF you pay attention Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is indicating body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not engaged in anything because it has been succeeded by his Noor. This results in denial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salah in his blessed grave which is in accordance with Hadith that Prophets perform Salah in the graves. This is beside the point. (ii) There is no denial Shaykh Dehalvi does seem to confirm/believe body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) remains in earth. Issue of contention has always been Shaykh Dehalvi has knowingly insulted, belittled, disrespected Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other Saliheen. (iii) Fact that Shaykh Dehalvi knew and believed bodies of Prophets and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are/is intact and incorrupt demonstrates to even greater extent how evil natured this Harami incarnation of Shaytan was. This doesn’t lessen the blame but increases the severity of what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi engaged in.

13.1 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Deliberate Use OF Insulting Language And Tone:

(i) Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat has not argued Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi believes the body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has actually decayed and turned to soil/dust. I quote: “… 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 … 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 you 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.] (ii) Issue here is that he chose to insult and degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by making Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the vessel through which Shaykh Dehalvi expressed his disrespect. Words mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is just one example of Tayz words which Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used to insult and degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (ii) He doesn’t even have excuse of Jahl which a uneducated Jahil can be afforded IF such words were uttered by such an individual. Instead we have evidence, quoted already, that Shaykh Dehalvi authored Taqwiyat ul-Iman with insulting, belittling, and disrespectful language. There is no excuse.

13.2 - Shaykh Thanvi Equates Words OF Taqwiyat ul-Iman To Lacking-Respect And Insult:

(i) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote: “And know/believe (with firm) conviction every creation may he be great (bara) or lowly (chota) compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 35, here.] Shaykh Thanvi was enquired about this insulting and degrading statement as well as another rank-lowering, belittling statement and Shaykh Thanvi says: “In Taqwiyat ul-Iman in some places those harsh/sakht words were employed, those then were cure for the ignorance of (people that belonged to that) period. Like in Quran Majeed against those who believed Isa (alayhis salam) as an Ilah … but present the habit of some (people) is that they employ these words without need; this is without doubt bay-adabi (lacking-respect) and gustakhi (insult).” [Ref: Imdad ul-Fatwa, Volume5, Page389, here.] What we got here is, in a context usage of these phrases is not insult, and in your context these are lacking-respect and are insulting. We are justified in asking: How is usage of such tone/language targeting Prophets, angels, Awliyah justified when correcting a Jahil Muslim’s misguidance? (ii) Thomas hold’s erroneous notions about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) such as: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can create another uncreated God. To correct Thomas should I employ insulting words targeting Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Would those words have warrant in Islam? Would those words be insulting and would I be committing major Kufr IF I employed harsh words against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while correcting Thomas? YES! How can use of harsh words targeting Prophets, angels, and Awliyah not be insult and disrespect of these personalities while correcting a Jahil Muslim? (iii) Truth is words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi employed are by their very nature insulting and disrespectful and no context would legitimize the usage nor make them disrespect-less, or insult-less. Shaykh Thanvi has to save grand Aba Ji Shaykh Dehalvi’s and Maslak Ulamah Haq Deoband’s academic honour hence he had to mix the truth with a lie that it is insulting IF used now and it wasn’t insulting disrespectful when Shaykh Dehalvi used it.

14.0 - Mullah Complains Foul About Shaykh Abu Hassan:

"But how does the notorious online Barelwī Abu Hasan present this passage of Taqwiyat al-Īmān? As follows: ... [LINK] ... (This is from Abu Hasan’s “The Killer Mistake”, p. 172) Where does it say “mar kar mittī honā” (I will die and become dust) in the passage? (Which Abu Hasan renders as: “I shall also die one day and become dust.”). Where does it say “mar kar mittī honā” (I will die and become dust) in the passage? (Which Abu Hasan renders as: “I shall also die one day and become dust.”). The very image from Taqwiyat al-Īmān that Abu Hasan shares shows the words are: “mar kar mittī mein milne wālā hon” (I will die and come into contact with soil), which are similar to the words used by al-Ṭībī and which the Urdu dictionaries show to mean: “to be buried”.”

14.1 - What Shaykh Abu Hassan Wrote In Book, The Killer Mistake:

(i) Shaykh Abu Hassan wrote: "This is the worst passage of all in which he mentions the ĥadīth of Qays in which RasūlAllāh g asked him, “Would you prostrate to my grave?” but Ismāýīl added his own insight and said that he would die and rot in his grave. “Mar kar mitti hona” is an idiom in Urdu meaning “died and became dust. Deobandis suddenly […] Insight: That is, I shall also die one day and became dust, then how am I worthy of prostration.” [Ref: The Killer Mistake, Page 212, Version 1.6, here.] Shaykh Abu Hassan also copy pasted the scanned image of relevant section where words, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) are clearly visible. This can be seen and read in Urdu, here. In his English text Shaykh Abu Hasan used, mar kar mitti hona (turning into dust after death) as expression denoting decomposition leading to stage of dust after death. Shaykh Abu Hassan does not say Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote, mar kar mitti hona. Instead he wrote, “mar kar mitti hona is an idiom in Urdu …” indicating he employed it as a nearest worded idiom to what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote to explain literal meanings expressed in phrase, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). (ii) What I stated is best possible solution based on FOUR concretes but you’re FREE to make your own decision -: (1) There is no explicit mention by Abu Hassan that phrase mar kar mitti hona (turning into dust after death) is what Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi wrote. (2) How linguistics demonstrate meanings of words by looking into nearest/closest words and idioms. (3) On basis that Abu Hassan provided scanned image of Urdu Taqwiyat ul-Iman where actual words were represented: “… 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 …“ This was even acknowledged by Mullah Zameel: “The very image from Taqwiyat al-Īmān that Abu Hasan shares shows the words are: “mar kar mittī mein milne wālā hon” (I will die and come into contact with soil), …” (4) Words mar kar mitti hona somewhat lessen the crime committed by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi but more on this later.

14.2 – Shaykh Abu Hasan’s Usage Of Mar Kar Mitti Hona And Dictionary Meanings:

(i) We will all look into Shaykh Abu Hasan’s usage of mar kar mitti hona (turning into dust after death) in light of Feroz ul-lughat. Feroz ul-Lughat has two idioms in one entry – Mitti ho jana (hona), here. Mitti ho jana (i.e. to become soil) is one idiomatic expression and mitti hona (i.e. becoming soil) is another. Feroz ul-Lughat’s author has combined both in one entry because they are exactly same in meanings. (ii) Mitti hona (i.e. becoming soil) in Feroz ul-Lughat has many meanings: “Mitti ho jana (hona) -: (Idiom) Mixing into dust, to become dust, to spoil, to get old, to be useless, to loose beauty, having dead heart, to be shy, to be embarrassed,  food loosing appeal after getting cold, burial (in grave).” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lughat, Page 1203, Mitti Ho Jana (hona), here.] We have all seen that literal meaning of idiom mitti hona (becoming soil) is to become dust but one of it’s meaning is of burial which Mufti Zameel has employed in his article. (iii) I will use respectable plural, i.e. honay (become), form of hona (become) to correctly reflect Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s, milnay (to mix). It does not change the conveyed meaning. When this idiom mitti hona (becoming soil) is contextualized into Taqwiyat ul-Iman as: Mein bi aik din mar kar mitti honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and become dust) than compared to Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s original statement it becomes evident there is no difference in meanings: “Mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon  …” (i.e. I will too one day die and mix into dust). In conclusion Shaykh Abu Hasan’s idiomatic usage presents literal meaning and also conveys meaning of burial which Mullah Zameel also leaned on: “While there are other meanings of “mitti mein milana” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is “dafan karna” (i.e. to bury) is also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning. The context is the explanation of a ḥadīth which refers to the Prophet ﷺ being in his grave i.e. being buried. This context is sufficient to clarify that what Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd meant by “mitti mein milnay wala hoon.” is to be buried (just like …”

14.3 - Mullah Zameel Possible Counter Argument - Mein Is Missing And Mein Is Essential:

Deobandi: There is no mein (in) in mitti hona (to become dust). Mein explain Shaykh Dehalvi’s intended meaning. Removing it changes the meaning. What you going to do about that? Muslim: Burial in grave is only meaning which is supported in dictionaries which Deobandis use to defend Shaykh Dehalvi and so did Mullah Zameel. All this mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) meaning mitti say milna (to make contact with dust) is all rubbish invented by Shayateen of Deoband. No grammarian has stated this in any dictionary in context of idiom mitti mein milna (to mix into dust). Hence absence of mein (in) from phrase mitti hona (to become dust) in reality is inconsequential and what did matter and absence of which could have been significant that meaning does exist under mitti hona (to become dust), burial, here. Deobandi: Yeah! Still Abu Hassan omitted mein (in) with mitti hona (to become dust) example. This distortion is inexcusable. Muslim: Right! Mufti Zameel at the end of his article quoted a book in APPENDIX, here. There author Mullah Sajid Khan Deobandi did not, nor Mullah Zameel thought usage of mein was too significant when telling the readers what phrase mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) conveys. Mullah Zameel without any objection or comment/criticism used phrases in order to explain mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) -: (1) mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (so dust has met with dust), (2) mayyit ko mitti dena (to give deceased to dust), (3) mitti milli heh (dust has contacted, or has got dust). Why no MEIN? What it deception? Distortion? Misrepresentation? Lies? Don’t try answering me you will say something stupid. When an idiomatic expression is explained all nearest meaning idioms are used. Hence mitti hona (to become dust) does not distort the idiomatic expression rather it is another variation which means same as mitti mein milna (to mix into dust).

14.4 - Facts Presented Now Decide IF Shaykh Abu Hasan Was Distorting Taqwiyat ul-Iman:

Shaykh Abu Hasan’s usage of mitti hona (becoming soil) in no way conveys meanings which mitti mein milna (i.e. to mix into dust) has not conveyed via mitti mein mil jana (milna) – to mix into dust: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: “to mix in to soil, body turning into soil, to spoil (as in decomposition sense), going bad/off.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] Readers can see AS PER Feroz ul-Lughat mitti mein milna (i.e. to mix into dust) does not convey meaning of burial but mitti hona (i.e. to become dust) does convey meaning of burial. I have presented you all the FACTS and now you: Was Shaykh Abu Hasan being dishonest and distorting true meaning of Taqwiyat ul-Iman or just representing same meanings via his own word selection? When you answer this question also keep in mind that Shaykh Abu Hasan nowhere has stated mitti hona was used by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi.

14.5 – Whose Conveyed Meaning Is Uglier - Mitti Hona VS. Mitti Mein Milna:

(i) Shaykh Abu Hasan employed words mar kar mitti hona (turning to dust after death). IF we contextualize these words into Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s than it would be read as: Mein bi aik din mar kar mitti honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and turn to dust). Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (one day I will too die and mix into dust). Which is ugly and whose rendering is uglier? (ii) Shaykh Abu Hasan’s word selection denotes becoming dust and omits meaning of mixing into dust. Shaykh Dehalvi’s actual statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman denotes, (1) becoming dust, (2) and mixing into dust. (iii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement denotes meaning that no sign of body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would remain because it has mixed into dust. Shaykh Abu Hasan’s wording actually lessens the severity because it insinuates turning into dust but does not say body’s remains would be mixed into soil. Did Mullah Zameel give Shaykh Abu Hasan his THANKS because of his help in him reduce the crime? You will see the THANK he got. (iv) Shaykh Abu Hasan expressed and highlighted FUNDAMENTAL meaning in Shaykh Dehalvi’s statement which goes against prophetic teaching. He did not and did not intend to distort to magnify nor changed the expression to lessen the crime of Shaykh Dehalvi. He was only highlighting one particular meaning of idiomatic expression while ignoring the other hence he used mar mar mitti hona. To argue Shaykh Abu Hasan distorted to increase, or to reduce than to victimize Shaykh Abu Hasan is injustice, and what Shaykh did was blameless.

14.6 – Shaykh Abu Hasan’s Usage Mitti Hona And Mullah Zameel’s Reaction:

(i) Mullah Zameel writes: "Where does it say “mar kar mittī honā” (I will die and become dust) in the passage? (Which Abu Hasan renders as: “I shall also die one day and become dust.”). The , ..." Mullah Zameel has translated, mar kar mitti hona, to mean, I will die and become dust. Why? Mullah did not know that words mitti hona (to become dust) also do convey meaning of burial in grave hence he jumped on chance to accuse Shaykh Abu Hasan of deception and distortion. (ii) This completely natural and literal understanding of words mitti hona (to become dust) by Mufti Zameel demonstrates that mitti/khaq mein milna (to mix into dust), mitti/khaq hona (to become dust), mitti/khaq mein milaana (to mix another into dust) and dozen other variation of this expression have natural, literal, standard meaning of becoming dust and then mixing into it. This is why our resident Khohta did not think twice about translating mitti hona (to become dust) in phrase mein bi aik din -: mar kar mitti hona as one day I will die and become dust. (iii) It is ONLY in dictionaries that meaning of burial is stated and ONLY in Deobandi books mein (in) in idiom mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) is understood in meaning of say (on, with). Mullah’s ignorance about other meanings of mitti hona (to become dust) has revealed others not aware of idiomatic meanings of words mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) will understand them literally as Mullah has done in regards to mitti hona (to become dust). This will be 99.9999 percent of Urdu speaking population. (iv) Those who do know, once being shown dictionaries, that these idiomatic expression are used in meanings of burial of deceased in grave. When they were enquired IF these words are used to describe burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) -: Would you consider the usage acceptable? Everyone termed such usage as either Gustakhi (insult), or Bey-adabi (lacking good-manners). Literal meaning which Mullah understood and contextualized into Taqwiyat ul-Iman were insulting too hence his song and dance about Shaykh Abu Hasan engaging in lies and distortion. Had he known the reality, it also means burial, it was unlikely he would have reacted in such a way.

15.0 - Deobandi Author Has Theory On Why Mar kar Mitti Hona Was Employed:

Distortion theory advanced by Mufti Zameel: “Abu Hasan commits taḥrīf right in front of his reader’s eyes. Even non-Urdu speakers (who can read an Arabic script) can see the words in the image he shared are “mar kar mittī mein milne wālā hon” not “mar kar mittī honā”. After committing this blatant taḥrīf Abu Hasan then has the gall to say it is Deobandis who give “far-fetched explanations”. Let alone a “far-fetched explanation”, Abu Hasan literally changes the words of the text.” What can I say to a Khohta masquerading as a graduate of a seminary and not just an Aalim but a MUFTI? I will not address Mullah but instead I will invest my time in intelligent and educated readers.

15.1 - Defining Mitti Mein Milna/Milnay By Idioms Linguistically Close To It:

(i) In Taqwiyat ul-Iman words are, mitti mein milnay (to mix into dust), but Deobandi MUFTI the author of article against Shaykh Abu Hassan has used, mitti mein milaana (to mix someone to dust), to define meaning of words used by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, here. Shameless deception is words mitti mein milna (to mix into dust); milna singular form of milnay; is just one entry before mitti mein milaana (to mix someone to dust) but he did not use that because it undermined his stance. Readers can decide IF Shaykh Abu Hasan was guilty of DISTORTION or not but Mullah Zameel IS guilty of DECEPTION. (ii) At the end of Deobandi’s article author has added an APPENDIX where mitti mein milnay (to mix into dust) has been explained by -: (1) khaq mein milna (to mix into dust), (2) mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), (3) mitti mein milaa deeya (to mix another into dust), (4) mitti mein mil jana  (to mix into dust), (5) mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (so dust has met with dust), (6) mayyit ko mitti dena (to give dust to deceased, or to give deceased to dust), (7) mitti milli heh (dust has contacted, or has got dust), here. Shaykh Abu Hassan used an idiom closely associated with words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman as do Deobandis to explain what words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman mean as demonstrated. Instead Mullah charged Shaykh Abu Hasan has engaged in distortion. (iii) Anyone with SMARTS would have contemplated: ‘Shaykh Abu Hasan provided scanned image showing problematic statement from a published Taqwiyat ul-Iman. It would be too adventurous of Shaykh Abu Hasan to pull such heist - IN FRONT OF EYES OF DEOBANDI MULLAH BRIGADE. Likely Shaykh Abu Hasan is providing clarification to words employed in Taqwiyat ul-Iman with words closely associated with them - a practice which we Deobandis engage in as well.’ Instead Mullah mooching OFF Masjid donations decided to go on ATTACK mode. (iv) He had to go on attack mode because Masjid committee must be watching his actions and IF he showed any sign of academic credibility, objectivity, integrity and common sense while responding to BARELWI his hand would have been taken out his Masjid’s Chanda box unceremoniously. Times are hard right now especially after COVID hence we must not be harsh on BAY-CHARA (helpless) Maulvi trying to survive brutality of Masjid committee members.

16.0 - Engage In Distortion, Far Fetched Taweelaat, Say We Are Only Peace Makers:

(i) Mullah writes: "Deobandīs are not giving “far-fetched explanations”. They are simply correcting the record on the lies upon lies that Barelwīs heap upon Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and others. Abu Hasan’s taḥrīf is not all that different to the very clear taḥrīf we caught Abu Hasan’s friend Muhammad Aqdas Barelwī doing of another passage from Taqwiyat al-Īmān. See here.” This is called lying utter shamelessly. We will see in coming sections IF Deobandis engage in FAR-FETCHED explanations and IF they engage in DISTORTION. (ii) Deobandis are quite deceptively are distorting original Taqwiyat ul-Iman to remove insults and change its insulting tone. Maulana Muhammad Ali Raza wrote book, Taqwiyat ul-Iman Mein Tahrif Keun (Why Distortion In Taqwiyat ul-Iman), here. What I have is so explosive that everyone who has engaged in FAR-FETCHED explanations of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala should die with shame. Don’t have your hopes up because their Mullahs have developed thick skin of shamelessness and have no sense of honour and dishonour. (iii) It is time to bring down Deobandi FAR-FETCHED SCAM mein means say.

17.0 – Brother Ghulam Rasool’s Retort And Deobandi’s Mufti Responds:

According to Barelwism WordPress on 09/09,2021 someone retorted (i.e. Ghulam Rasool) -: (i) “It was Molvi Manzoor Nomani who first made Taweel that in the statement, mitti mein milnay wala,  the word, Mein, has been interchangeable with, Sey, so it could also be read as, mitti sey milna wala, which when translated into English would mean, come into contact with soil. This shows the level of Urdu of the Deobandi Akabireen, who don’t know the difference between the words, Mein and Sey. (ii) The definitions shown in Feroz ul-Lughat for, mitti mein milna included: to make extinct, to remove all traces of and to lay waste to something, and from all those he only saw, to bury, this is nothing more than wilful blindness.” This post can be seen on SunniPort, here, and on scribd, here. Mufti Zameel wrote in response: “In the sentence in question “Mein” (in) and “Say” (with/from/to) can be used interchangeably. Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohī hinted to this in his Fatāwā (see the last line in the Urdu passage from Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah, above). Nūr-ul-Lughāt vol. 4 p. 738 also explains that “Mein” (in) can sometimes be used in the meaning of “Say” (with/from): * HERE *. The example given is: “Darakht mein band’h do.” which means: “Darakht Say band’h do. (tie it to the tree).“ Original with Urdu Rasm ul-Khat can be read, here, as well as on Barelwism WordPress blog, here. Mufti Zameel does not explicitly say but he demonstrated that it was Shaykh Gangohi who initiated this evil Sunnah and not Shaykh Nomani. I agree. (iii) I will address the contents authored by Mullah in chronological order: (1) Shaykh Gangohi’s Fatwa, (2) usage of MEIN in meaning of SAY, (3) and finally address mitti mein milna (to mix into soil) means to dafan karna (to bury).

17.1 - What Shaykh Gangohi Wrote In Fatawa Rasheediya About Mitti Mein Milna:

Shaykh Gangohi wrote: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And deceased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too convinced in bodies of Prophets (alayhis salam) NOT turning into dust. Because dead-person is encompassed by soil from four sides and from below body is in contact with soil – this is called, mitti mein milna, and mitti say milaana. There is no (reason for an) objection.” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.]

17.2 - Shaykh Gangohi And His Alternative, Mein To Mean Is Say Under Attack:

(i) I am not denying usage of mein (in) in meaning of say (from, on, with). In the following discussion I will be just attempting to demonstrate and help readers figure out when mein (in) is in meaning of say (from, with, on). IF I purpose a solution in absence of some serious issues all might not agree to it hence it is important I give you tour of battle ground. (ii) Crow BOTIS (meat-bits) and Salan: (1) Shaykh Gangohi: Ashraf Ali Thanvi I am hungry, Salan aur Halal Desi Kavwa ki botiyan plate mein daldo (I am hungry, put curry and Desi crows meat chunks plate mein). Did he want the delicious crow meat chunks in the plate or did Shaykh Gangohi ask Shaykh Thanvi to donate FROM (say) his plate some Kavwa BOTIS and Salan to him? Please be aware scenario minted on spot is not entirely FICTIONAL because Shaykh Gangohi deemed crow as Halal, here, here. (2) Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani: Meri jawan 16 sala beti apnay gar mein gaee (My sixteen year old daughter went into/mein house). IF mein (into/in) means say (from/with) than did Shaykh Madani’s daughter, gar mein gaee (went into home), or gar say gaee (went from home), or (went on home), or (went with home)? Those who don’t know, in Urdu vernacular words gar say gaee (went from home) are used to insinuate a girl has eloped with her boy-friend. How do we determine Shaykh Madani’s daughter went into/in her Abba Ji’s home, or decided to leave Abba Ji’s home, or just went to roof of the house? I say she kept her Abba’s Izzat (honour) intact and went into her Abba’s house. You play, DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY game and explore other meanings of word mein (in). (iii) A comprehensive and a rather savage response was given to a Deobandi who used the same argument, here. Contents of your interest start 14.0 and end at section 14.4. It is imperative you read the linked contents otherwise you will miss decisive and consequential refutation to BAKWAS perpetuated by Deobandis.

17.3 - Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi Invents A New Methodology:

(i) In idiomatic expression, mitti mein milnay wala, subjecting mein (in, into) to Taweel and defining it to mean say (on, from, with) than interpreting idiomatic expression based on that Taweel changes its actual dictionary defined meanings. You will not find this Taweel of idioms on basis that mein (in, into) means say (on, from, with) in any dictionary nor Taweel based meaning of expression under mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), mitti mein milaana (to mix another into dust) etc. Not in Feroz ul-Lughat, not in Noor ul-Lughat, not in Jami ul-Lughat, not in Farhang Asifiyyah, here. None in dictionaries defined idiomatic expression, mitti mein milna/milnay wala, to mean, mitti say milnay wala (to come into contact with soil/dust). Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi the potential Desi crow muncher, invented methodology of subjecting idiomatic expressions to linguistics stresses to defend his heart throb, one who made his heart skip a beat. (ii) Show us one evidence of any dictionary printed by a non-Deobandi pre-dating this article where a grammarian has stated in idiom mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) word mein (in, into) is to be understood as say (on, from, with).

17.4 – When Is Usage OF Mein (in, into) Understood In Meaning Of Say (with, from, on):

(i) Mein (in, into) is used in meaning of say (on, from, with, to) when natural apparent and obvious meaning of mein (in, into) is not logical and natural. Common example given in dictionaries is, darakht mein band do (tie it in tree) = darakht say band do (tie it to/with/on tree), here. Despite this I am hard press to justify its usage beyond couple of usages. Mein (in, into) in some usages in meaning of say (on, from, with, to) linguistically is impossible to maintain.

17.5 - Subjecting Idiomatic Expression To Linguistic Stresses And Results:

(i) Idioms are not subjected to interpretation based linguistic meanings of words used in them. Words, mar kar mitti mein milna/milnay, are idiomatic expressions with meanings defined in dictionaries. It is bit of Khohta act to interpret idioms based on other meanings of words employed in an idiomatic expressions. Idiom: Haath par samp khilaana. Literally: Playing with snake on one’s hand. Idiomatic meaning: Engaging in an act which puts life at risk. Engaging in extremely high energy expenditure activity, here. IF I were acting as Khohta than I will look into various meanings of words employed in idiomatic expression and subject it to SO FAR FETCHED interpretations that Andromeda galaxy would seem stone’s throw away. (ii) Take word, Haath (hand), as an example of unwarranted attention, here. Haath (hand) has one meaning which English readers/speakers will be able to relate – Tash kay pattay jo kissi kay hissay mein ahen - share of playing-cards given to a player equals, Haath. What do we get IF Khohta-ness is let loose -: Tash pattoon par samp ko khilaana. Translation: Playing with snake on playing-cards. This might insinuate other meanings (i.e. making fool of someone) but definitely does not reflect dictionary meaning. (iii) Idiomatic expression in question also uses word, Khilaana, and one of meaning given in dictionary is, Pitwana (to get someone beaten-up), here. In this light idiomatic expression, Haath par samp khilaana, would turn into, Haath par samp pitwana - (To get a snake beat up on one’s hand). Which denotes meaning of: Getting someone/enemy beat up personally. This has nothing to do with original intended meaning of idiomatic expression. Making Taweel of an idiom based on words used in it results into DISTORTION of idiom. (iv) Guess what Deobandis have been doing for past 175 years in defence of Taqwiyat ul-Iman. You guessed it right. They have distorted an idiom, mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), based on words used in it to convey meanings not found in dictionaries, such as mitti say milna (to come into contact with soil).

17.6 - Shouldn’t Support Shaykh Gangohi’s Subjecting Idioms To Torture OF Detail:

(i) Subjecting idiomatic expressions to other meanings of words completely distorts the intended and recorded meaning of idioms. I have just used two as example. IF Shaykh Gangohi’s desperate distortion was legitimate and methodology which rise to it was given legitimacy than Urdu language as known and understood is dead. (ii) Any Urdu reader can open a dictionary and go on to destroy Urdu language and standardisation idiomatic expressions and completely distort meanings of sentences in books. (iii) In this light I once again suggest that reinterpreting idiomatic expressions based on meanings of words be rejected due to three reasons: (1) It was an innovation in Urdu language which Shaykh Gangohi originated. It had no basis and has no basis in Urdu linguistics. (2) Such subjection changes the meanings to something which was never associated with idiom by grammarians or recorded in dictionaries. (3) Mein (in/into) is always on its natural and apparent meaning until Haqiqi (true), Zahiri (apparent) meaning cannot be maintained in a sentence. (iv) Demonstration: Meri piyari bayti gar mein gaee aur meri khushi ka basit bani (My beloved daughter went into house and became cause of my happiness.) Secular so called Muslim would say that in dictionary mein (in, into) is used in meaning of say (on, from, with, to) hence Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani supported girls eloping with boys hence he was happy about his daughter leaving home. When the secularist is shown word means in/into and not as he is distorting he would argue: “While there are other meanings of “mein” (in) mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is “from” is also one meaning.” Why secularist guys Taweel is unacceptable because natural meaning fit into sentence and Taweel suggested is a stretch. (v) Readers now can judge IF word MEIN in Taqwiyat ul-Iman, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is in meaning of SAY or not and IF Deobandis are engaged in FAR-FETCHED explanations or not of controversial statement. (vi) Mullah quoted: “The example given is: “Darakht mein band’h do.” which means: “Darakht Say band’h do. (tie it to the tree).“ In previous sections I have shared with you rules how and when MEIN is in meaning of SAY. Readers can now themselves see why words darakht mein band do is in meaning of, darakht say band do. Natural actual meaning of MEIN would make no sense hence it is in meaning of SAY.

18.0 - Mullah Argues About Intended Meaning OF Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala:

Mullah Zameel writes: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning. The context is the explanation of a ḥadīth which refers to the Prophet being in his grave i.e. being buried. This context is sufficient to clarify that what Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd meant by “mitti min milnay wala hoon" is to be buried (just like al-Ṭībī’s “raheen rams”)."

18.1 - Deobandi Acknowledges Mitti Mein Milna/Milnay Has Dual Usage:

(i) Barelwism-blog has acknowledged: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” Mullah has accepted there are other meanings of idiom mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), mitti mein milaana (to mix another into dust). He didn’t state what other meanings are so here are meanings of mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) -: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: “to mix in to soil, body turning into soil, to spoil (as in decomposition sense), going bad/off.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] Word khaq (soil/dust) is another word for mitti (dust/soil) and in Noor ul-Lughat under entry khaq mein milna following meanings are recorded -: “Khaq mein milna (to mix into dust) – to waste, to be eradicated. Sentence: My hard work mixed into dust (i.e. got wasted).  Burial in ground after death.” [Ref: Noor Ul-Lughat, Volume2, Page472, here.] (ii) His argued meaning is also in dictionaries under mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust). This milaana (to mix) variation he has referrence from dictionaries in his article as proof that mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) means burial in grave. (iii) He also assumes on grounds of dictionary meaning and due to context of statement he has legitimate reason to believe mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) is harmless and it was used to mean, to bury (dafan karna) -: “And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” (iv) I will address mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) in light of what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and historical data.

18.2 - Reminder Do Not Engage In Words Which Could Be Distorted To Insult:

(i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed the believers: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] How does the Deobandi put Ra’ina Ayah  into practice? Says RA’INA and uses dictionary to argue RA’INA is not used in meaning of RA’INA but we used it in another meaning. (ii) You were prohibited to use innocent expressions, such as RA’INA, due to reason that it can distorted to insult and degrade and mock the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) and innocent are FAR apart as Tawheed and Shirk. This phrase by very nature is insulting. Hence phrase is prohibited even more so than Ra’ina and this phrase should be deemed and judged as prohibited and insulting by those who claim Islam as their religion. Ra’ina and Unzurna are two words but both contain very important lesson. (iii) What did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instruct in regards to manners to be used about Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) -: “Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So …” [Ref: Q24:63] Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the believers to respect and honour the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) -: “O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good news and a warner. That you may believe in Allah and His Messenger and honour him and respect the Prophet and exalt Allah morning and afternoon.” [Ref: Q48:8/9] Here is an example of ADAB (respect) which companion showed: “Sayyidina Qays ibn Makhramah narrated: I was born as was Allah's Messenger in the year of the Elephant. Uthman ibn Affan asked Qubath ibn Ashyam of Banu Yamar ibn Layth: “Are you Akbar (older/great) or Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam)? He said, Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Akbar then me but I was born before him. He added, 'And I saw the droppings of green birds having faded.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B52, Ch4, H3639, here.] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed what the hidden Kafir said and instructed the believers: “And when they (the hypocrites) are told, “Believe as others (the companions)  believe,” they reply, “Will we believe as the fools believe?” Indeed, it is they who are fools, but they do not know.” [Ref: Q2:13] Believe and act on instruction of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as the righteous companions believed. Respect/honour the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as the companions respected/honoured the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Do not use words which could be used to insult, disrespect, and lower the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iv) Mullah Zameel you have no excuse IF you use words mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) in regards Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or support and protect one who has used these words about the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). You’re amongst the apostates.

18.3 - To Bury Is Also Meaning And That Is What Is Intended By Context:

(i) Mullah writes: “… the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that, that is the intended meaning.” What was intended is not even up for argument. You’re prohibited to use those words about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which can be misconstrued to insult, and words which by their nature denote insult. What was intended would be up debate IF there was permissibility to use words which could mean insult. Hence, shut it you imbecile. There is no room to argue IF you claim you’re believer in the Ayah but IF you’re disbeliever you were warned in the same Ayah:  "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104]

18.4 – Liars Distorting Truth Cannot Agree On Intended Meaning:

(i) Mullah says it is evident by context that Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi intended dafan karna (to bury) as intended meaning of mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) here: “While there are other meanings of, “Mitti mein milana.” mentioned in the dictionary, the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” In this context controversial statement of would mean: one day I too will die and will be buried (in a grave). While Shaykh Gangohi says Shaykh Dehalvi’s intended meaning is: “Mitti mein milnay has two meanings. One (is) this – after becoming soil, than mixing into soil of earth, like all matter when it falls to earth, turns to soil, than turns to (or becomes) earth. Secondly to get in touch and attach to soil, meaning; mitti say mil jana (to connect to/with soil). Here the intention is second meaning. And deceased (Shaykh Dehalvi) is too …” [Ref: Talifat e Rasheediya, Page 111, here.] In this context words, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon, will mean, I will too one day die and come to touch soil. Two liars doing their best to turn the readers away from believing in literal apparent obvious meaning and both contradicting each other. (ii) Idioms mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) and mitti say milna (to make contact with dust) both mean burial in grave. Yet Shaykh Gangohi decided to take readers to same meaning via Taweel of MEIN (in, into) and not directly dictionary meaning. There is a problem. Why didn’t Shaykh Gangohi just go to dictionary and proved it means burial in grave? What did he need to gloss over? Think!

18.5 - Why Taweel Mitti Mein Milna To Mitti Say Milna And Dictionary Meanings:

(i) IF burial in grave was intended meaning than why are you making Taweel of mein (in) in idiom mitti mein milna (to mix into dust)? Do the dictionaries not state mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) means burial in grave? Why do you make Taweel? Why don’t you refer to that meaning, i.e. burial in grave, without Taweel of MEIN (in)? Fact you and your Deobandi senior scholarship has engaged in Taweel is indicating there is something wrong, there is something which is making you uncomfortable. (ii) You’re making Taweel because literal obvious natural reading of idiom mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) is insulting and belittling. Hence you resort to MEIN’S (in) Taweel and turn it to SAY (with) making idiom read mitti say milna (to make contact with dust). This mitti say milna (to make contact with dust) also means burial in grave. Why turn MEIN (in, into) to SAY (with)? (iii) To demonstrate the reason I present a scenario in which Amr wants to convey meaning of burial in grave by saying both phrases: (1) Amr: Ashraf Ali Thanvi mar kar mitti mein mil gaya. Amr: Ashraf Ali Thanvi died and mixed into dust. (2) Amr: Ismail Dehalvi mar kar mitti say mil gaya. Amr: Ismail Dehalvi died and came into contact with dust. In both usages Amr wants to convey meaning of burial in grave. I want to ask you: Which expression would you prefer to employ in meaning of burial in grave for your dearest and nearest ones? (iv) The reason is obvious, mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) by its very nature is insulting when employed to mean burial of someone in grave. Whereas mitti say milna (to make contact with dust) is polite respectable usage to mean the same. This is why Deobandi Shayateen resort to Taweel of MEIN (in, into) to mean SAY (with).

18.6 – What Was Intended By Shaykh Dehalvi, Another Side From Shaykh Thanvi:

(i) Mullah says: “… the fact is, “Dafan karna.” is also also one meaning. And it is evident from the context that that is the intended meaning.” I will give you the context, hang on a second, you idiot. Here: “… 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 (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 … 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 you 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.] Now which meaning of phrase do you purpose, the apparent literal obvious, or Taweel based and dictionary sponsored? (ii) This historical anecdote recorded and reported by your very own Deobandi Mullah establishes Shaykh Dehalvi was aware what he wrote in Taqwiyat ul-Iman lacked respect and good-manners. IF phrase (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is not an example of TAYZ (rude) language you tell me what else meets the criteria? Shaykh Dehalvi could have wrote, I too will be buried in grave, but he deliberately selected TAYZ (rude) language. Are we to ignore Shaykh Dehalvi’s own admission that he used TAYZ (rude) language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman, or go with your FAR-FETCHED Taweelaat? IF your Taweelaat are the intended meaning than do you mind sharing with us examples of TAYZ (rude) language which according to Shaykh Dehalvi would lead to in-fighting, disunity, and Fitna in Ummah?

18.7 - Shaykh Dehalvi, Taqwiyat ul-Iman, And Tayz Language Cause OF Unbridgeable Divide:

(i) IF you had any sense you would have realized TAYZ (rude) language which Shaykh Dehalvi indicated has caused a unbridgeable chasm between Muslims and Deobandis. It has been nearly two hundred years since Taqwiyat ul-Iman was written and all it has caused is FITNA upon FITNA which its very own author predicted. You on other hand, a dumbass, is yet to acknowledge Shaykh Dehalvi used of TAYZ (rude) language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman and FITNA it caused. You’re too busy blaming those who opposed Shaykh Dehalvi and his Taqwiyat ul-Iman while the Shaykh Dehalvi acknowledged I used this and I am/will be a cause of FITNA. (ii) You tell me in context of this anecdote whose authenticity is your own Mullah, and on basis of Shaykh Dehalvi admission how are we to understand words, mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) -: (1) Literally, (2) or according to context, (3) or according to Shaykh Dehalvi’s admission that he has used TAYZ language? You would want us to go with what your Mullahs have conjured up with their magical wands. Even that conjured up FANTASY is contradicted between you Deobandis as demonstrated in 18.4/18.5.

18.8 – IF Everything Deobandis Claim Is True VS. Do We Judge On Intentions:

(i) For sake of argument we agree that, (1) mar kar mitti mein milna, means, coming into contact with soil after death, (2) Shaykh Dehalvi intended to use burial in grave meaning by employing mitti mein milna. We agree intended this. (ii) He might have intended what you Deobandis claim but in the light of recorded anecdote it is evident he deliberately used controversial, provocative, insulting language and expected a FITNA. I would dare to say he wrote Taqwiyat ul-Iman to cause a FITNA. Readers have decision to make in regards to who they choose to believe. Who do you believe Shaykh Dehalvi, or Mullahs distorting truth to paint rosy image of Shaytan? (iii) What he intended, what he wrote are not reconcilable with each other, nor excusable in light of Shari’ah. We judge criminal and sinful actions based on apparent and not intentions. IF a criminal asks to be judged by his intention and not his evil action than we Muslims judge him on his action and not his claimed intention. (iv) Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said: “Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good." [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] Do you judge by what the action of Shaykh Dehalvi (i.e. written words of Shaykh Dehalvi) or by what is claimed (i.e. his intention was this meaning)? Who are you with Wahhabi or Sahabi? (v) Mullah Zameel do not be a Wahhabi. Judge according to methodology of Sahabi. Judge on apparent and not according to intention. Judge according to methodology of rightly guided Caliph because you’re instructed to judge by his Sunnah: “It was said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah, you have delivered a speech of farewell, so enjoin something upon us.' He said: 'I urge you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if (your leader) is an Abyssinian slave. After I am gone, you will see great conflict. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the path of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] Judge Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) as it should be judged, on apparent and not according to cheap Deobandi scholarship.

19.0 – Mullah’s Three Reasons Why Not Literal - Poetry, Belief, Rephrasing:

Mullah writes: “What further supports this meaning is: 1. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s poetry which shows he believes the blessed body of the Prophet is preserved. 2. The fact that the preservation of the blessed body of the Prophet is the belief that he was brought up with, and is something accepted even by Wahhābīs. There is no reason at all to think he would deviate from this accepted belief. 3. The strong likelihood Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was simply rephrasing the “raheen rams” found in earlier commentaries of Mishkat. Given these external and internal indications, there can be no doubt about Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s intent.”

19.1 – Mullah’s Three Reasons Why Shaykh Dehalvi Didn’t Mean Literally:

(i) Despite his poetical verses he chose to express passing and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in a very disrespectful way. His poetry demonstrates Shaykh Dehalvi was aware that bodies of Prophets do not decompose, turn to dust/soil. This removes excuse that Shaykh Dehalvi may not have known about the Ahadith. (ii) Shaykh Dehalvi having knowledge since childhood further removes the excuse of ignorance which could be afforded one who may not know about Quran/Sunnah teaching about the issue at hand. The issue is not that he deviated from creed which Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah rather as Shaykh Thanvi’s anecdote referenced in 18.6 quite evidently establishes Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi had plans to be controversial. As a result he expressed death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) distaste, disrespect, and insultingly. Shaykh Thanvi’s anecdote sealed that deal. (iii) I also agree with observation that Shaykh Dehalvi was influenced by commentaries of Shaykh Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahima-hu-llah) and Shaykh al-Tibi (rahima-hu-llah). Shaykh Dehalvi conveyed certain meanings like them but they did not use his tone of language nor Shaykh Dehalvi used their tone by using mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). Mullah Zameel to insinuate Shaykh Dehalvi acted as them is Khohta act. None out of two has expressed death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi did. In no dictionary the words raheen rams mean mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). I have already exposed your lie, deception, and grand Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Tandvi level distortion of Sharh al-Tibi in sections 12.1/12.3. Remember you inserted words “… and that goes away …” into your translation to make it similar to mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust).

19.2 - Linguistic Meanings OF Raheen/Rams And Shaykh Abdul Haq’s Way:

(i) Word rams according Deobandi Mullah Qasoori means, grave, and soil of grave. Word raheen he says it means something that is deposited as security i.e. pawned, here. He cites Arabic dictionary Muntahi al-A’rab Fi Lughat al-Arab but same meaning of raheen is found in Urdu dictionary, Feroz ul-Lughat, Page 732, here. This goes on to demonstrate that raheen rams conveys meaning that body of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is contained under soil, or contained in a grave, or contained in a grave’s soil. (ii) In a marginal note Shaykh Qasoori states, Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith al-Dehalvi (rahima-hu-llah) has stated that raheen means, to imprison, and imprisoned but has provided no reference. I looked into Shaykh Abdul Haq’s Ash’aat ul-Lam’aat, Urdu translation; here, original Farsi; here, and nothing of imprison/imprisoned sort was stated under the Hadith. (iii) I had to solicit help of a young trainee Aalim to trace Shaykh Qasoori’s claim. Urdu can be seen, here, and original Farsi, here. Meaning which Shaykh Qasoori mentioned and referenced Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith al-Dehalvi’s (rahima-hu-llah) Sharh (commentary) is in context of Kitab al-Biyy’u (Book OF Business Transactions). Shaykh Abdul Haq (rahima-hu-llah) employed it in meaning of deposit something as guarantee/collateral, to pawn something. Shaykh Qasoori should know meaning of words is determined according to context of their usage. In context of business transactions pawned is only appropriate translation. (iv) In Hadith of Qais Bin Sa’d (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Shaykh Abdul Haq (rahima-hu-llah) translated word rams to means veil/curtain according to both Shaykh Qasoori and Allamah Sharf Qadri (rahima-hu-llah). Raheen according to Shaykh Qasoori as hide/conceal behind, and according to Allamah Sharf Qadri (rahima-hu-llah), cover in. Both are in agreement over what Shaykh Dehalvi wrote: “When I veil from this earthly life than you will not prostrate.” [Ref: Ash’aat ul-Lam’aat, Vol4, Pages 380-381, Urdu, here] “When I leave this world and conceal behind (soil’s) curtain than you will not prostrate.” [Ref: Charagh e Sunnat, Page244, here.] Shaykh Abdul Haq (rahima-hu-llah) employed respectable and honourable meanings of words rams/raheen in context of death and burial of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Abdul Haq (rahima-hu-llah) practically demonstrated that whatever words may mean when it is used about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) than it has to be translated according respectable and honourable meaning. (v) Shaykh Syed Firdos Shah Qasoori rather than learning something good by analysing translation of words raheen/rams dumb animal tried to turn the Muslims against Shaykh Shah Abdul Haq Muhaddith al-Dehalvi (rahima-hu-llah). Please do not judge Shaykh Qasoori harshly he was only handicapped by this third class intellect.

19.3 - Shaykh Dehalvi’s Intent To Insult And Belittle In Context Of His Own Confession:

(i) Given the literal apparent obvious meaning of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) along Shaykh Dehalvi’s admitting to using disrespectful language it is absolutely natural to conclude Shaykh Dehalvi deliberately, knowingly, and with intention of belittling Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used words, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) -: “…‘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). […] 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 you 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.] (ii) In comparison to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s usage Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith al-Dehalvi’s (rahima-hu-llah) expression about Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) death and burial is pinnacle of respect/honouring of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) -: “When I veil from this earthly life than you will not prostrate.” [Ref: Ash’aat ul-Lam’aat, Vol4, Pages 380-381, Urdu, here]

20.0 – Mullah Slanders The Righteous Scholars OF Islam:

Mullah writes: “The reason Barelwīs insist on another false reading is (a) hatred for Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and (b) the fact that this misreading of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s text goes right back to Faḍl Rasūl Badāyūnī, followed by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, and all Barelwī elders (liars).”

20.1 – By Slandering You’re Increasing Khayr For Scholars, And Fire In Your Mouth:

What you see above is example of Kutta barking up the wrong tree. What Imam Ahmad Raza (rahima-hu-llah), Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah), Imam Fadl Haq Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) and other scholars engaged in against Shaykh Dehalvi and evil of Taqwiyat ul-Iman he spawned was nothing less than Jihad in cause of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Their righteous stand against Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s contents and those who stood with Shaykh Dehalvi is even attested by your own Deobandi scholarship. You can slander these scholars and righteous servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) however you like to vent your hate. Righteous before them were slandered and vilified including Prophets, companions, and this evil continues to this day. Your vile tongue will only increase their rank and reward with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is compassionate and generous. In His Ghayra Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will compensate each with reward for every ill that was spoken about them. Hence you can keep wagging your evil tongue to sooth your enraged burnt to charcoal heart due to our Islam dominating your Kufr but all you add is Khayr in their bowl and hell in your mouth: “But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an innocent (person) has taken upon himself a slander and manifest sin.” [Ref: Q4:112]

20.2 - To Hate Or Not To Hate, And The Cause Of Hate:

(i) There are two points which need addressing: (1) Muslims insist that mar kar mitti mein milnay wala wala, means, one whom is to die and mix into dust, due to hatred of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. (2) He charges that the ‘injustice’ against Shah Ismail Dehalvi’s statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman in discussion was originated by Allamah Shah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) and it was continued by Imam Ahmad Raza Khan al-Qadri (rahima-hu-llah) etc. I will address both in order. (ii) In regards to claim, Muslims ascribe wrong meaning to statement in discussion due to hatred. Chicken came FIRST or the egg? I will break this question down, as our MUFTI is intellectually and rationally challenged. HATE came BEFORE or Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s TAYZ language? IF Taqwiyat ul-Iman and it’s TASHADDAD (extremism) and Tayz (harsh/rude) language came FIRST than do you really blame Muslims disliking and hating a Shaytan like Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi? Who will love, have compassion and sympathy for one who deliberately alters religion of Islam and with complete disregard uses insulting language while referencing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Saliheen of Ummah? Anyone with spec of Iman and Islam will and should expect us Muslims to hate, revile, and vomit at very mention of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. (iii) I wrote you’re intellectually and rationally challenged, and that was not without warrant. IF you stated Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) hated Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi due to personal enmity. Then you went on to invent: When they were young both took part in a wrestling competition. Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi won the match against Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah). It was this score Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) was settling with Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi by distorting true meaning of mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). I would have thought at least Mufti Zameel tried IF you had said something like: ‘There is nothing wrong with text of Taqwiyat ul-Iman it is a misreading and distortion by Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) hate because …’. You just didn’t think things through nor based your argument on reason. Instead the Munazir e Islam said FOLLOWERS of these two insist on this meaning due to hatred of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Our hatred is no consequence to judgments of Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) and Imam Barelwi (rahima-hu-llah)? Our dislike and hate of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is due to what your Shaykh Dehalvi wrote and what was passed to us in light of Quran and Sunnah.

20.3 - Fault With Author And Enablers Of Evil Sunnah, Not With Imams Of Muslims:

(i) I will ‘agree’ with assumption that IT was Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) who started this antagonism against Shaykh Dehalvi. The real question is why did Allamah Fadl Rasool (rahima-hu-llah) start his antagonism against statement, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom has die and mixed into dust)? Why did Imam Ahmad Raza Khan al-Qadri (rahima-hu-llah) conform to Allamah Badayuni’s (rahima-hu-llah) stance? Could it be the TAYZ language which your own sect’s senior scholarship recorded Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi acknowledging: “…‘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). […] 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 you 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.] Shaykh Anwar Shah Kashmiri is also on record saying that he is not happy with contents of Taqwiyat ul-Iman because it created a lot of argumentation/disagreements, here. (ii) It would be better IF you spend time reflecting who the REAL source of problem is. Let me help you by eliminating Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) and Imam Barelwi (rahima-hu-llah) out of equation. Going by your sect’s senior scholarship the problem was primarily Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi and the Shayateen who encouraged him to publish Taqwiyat ul-Iman as it was written: “Upon this one individual said it definitely should be published but from so and so place it should be changed. Maulvi Abdul Hayy, Shah Ishaq, and Abdullah Khan Alavi and Momin Khan opposed this and said there is no need for alteration. On this they (all) discussed between themselves and after discussion through unanimous decision it was agreed there is no need for alteration. This book should be published as it is therefore it was published as it is.” [Ref: Arwa e Salasa, Page 67, Hakayat 59, here, here.] (iii) IF you say what is recorded by Shaykh Thanvi is not true than you can dig him up and  hang Shaykh Thanvi’s bones on pole, ignoring that he has mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (died and mixed into soil) and question him about what he recorded in his book and why. You won’t because you may have been reading his Kalma, la ilaha il-allah Ashraf Ali RasoolAllah, here.

20.4 - Allamah Badayuni Was Not Alone, Nor First To Speak Against This Statement:

(i) Mufti Zameel wrote but did not cite any source: “… the fact that this misreading of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s text goes right back to Faḍl Rasūl Badāyūnī, followed by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, …” My engagements with Mullah Sajid Khan Naqshbandi has taught me IF anything, when a Deobandi does not cite a source, or scanned image is too blurred, or too small to see clearly, or book is referenced but page, volume, publishers name is not stated than there is something not right. (ii) Mentioned Mullah Sajid will make entry into this article also in the last part of article. (iii) I spent 4 hours looking where, IF Allamah Badayuni wrote to indicate he was the FIRST one to criticise Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s statement, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom has die and mixed into dust). There is nothing to indicate this claim of Mufti Zameel: “… the Prophet said: ‘The proof is due from the claimant, and the oath is due from the one the claim is made against.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B13, H1341, here.] (iv) I contacted Shaykh Abu Hasan (SunniPort) and requested his help and he managed reference in which Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) stated (v) Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) wrote:: “Author of Taqwiyat ul-Iman conveyed the meaning of this: “Meaning -: one day I will too die and mix into dust.” They (the scholars) said: O debased why did you translate (words) “… my grave …” to mean that, I will become dust? And …” [Ref: Saif al-Jabbar, Page186/187, here, here.] This indicates Allamah Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) was not alone nor the initiator of antagonism but others before him had raised this objection and he was narrating what was said to Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi.

20.4 – Allamah Fadl Haq Says Shaykh Dehalvi Was Guilty Of Insulting And Kufr:

(i) Deobandi book, Tazkira Hazrat Shah Ismail Shaheed, there is mention of two persons stating Taqwiyat ul-Iman is nothing but abuse directed toward the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions -: “One person was saying Taqwiyat ul-Iman is nothing but Kufr. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions have been subject of constant abuse.” [Ref: Tazkira Hazrat Shah Ismail Shaheed, Page45/46, here.] (ii) According your own Deobandi book it was Imam Fadl Haq Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) was FIRST individual to target Shaykh Dehalvi academically: “Research has revealed first person to object academically to contents of Taqwiyat ul-Iman was Maulana Fadl Haq Khayrabadi. Maulana Khayrabadi was a great scholar of philosophical-logic (and had benefitted from Wali-Illahi family). He from Maulana Shaheed (rh) one statement derived meaning of Imkan Nazeer […]Maulana Khayrabadi on this issue wrote a booklet and as an professional scholar intelligently objected to certain issues. In this booklet there was no soothing ‘the desire of inventing Kufr’, nor abuse. Only his opinions were expressed.” [Ref: Tazkira Hazrat Shah Ismail Shaheed, Page47/48, here.] Naseer Ahmad Faridi Amrhuwi states: (1) Allamah Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) was first to direct criticism toward Shaykh Dehalvi in academic manner. (2) Allamah Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) did not invent Kufr out of thin air to target Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. Shaykh Faridi’s last statement in Urdu insinuates that there was no actual Kufr in Taqwiyat ul-Iman nor Allamah Khayrabadi attempted to invent one. This is typical shameless Deobandi pious lying in order to conceal reality of Allamah Khayrabadi’s (rahima-hu-llah) Hukm Kufr. (iii) Allamah Fadl Haq Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) wrote Tehqeeq ul-Fatwah in response to a request of Fatwa where he focused on couple portions of Taqwiyat ul-Iman were submitted to him. In response he established Shaykh Dehalvi insulted the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by writing, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can create millions, Prophets, Awliyah, angels, Jinn, Jibraeel equal to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in an instant, because this is expression used to deny uniqueness and speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allamah Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) writes also writes Shaykh Dehalvi’s another statement, IF all Prophets/Messengers and Jibraeel become Dajjals even then majesty of Allah’s kingdom will not be lessened, is insulting the Messengers/Prophets and Jibraeel (alayhis salam), here. At the end of book Allamah Khayrabadi (rahima-hu-llah) issues Hukm of Kufr, here. (iv) This establishes Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) was not one who INITIATED charge, Shaykh Dehalvi is insulter of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but others had already had charged Shaykh Dehalvi of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allamah Fadl Rasool Badayuni (rahima-hu-llah) advanced the same position using other examples of disrespectful language found in Taqwiyat ul-Iman.

20.5 - Indirect Corroboration Shaykh Dehalvi Was Known As Gustakh:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about a certain individual: “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] Erroneous notion everyone who disrespects and abuses the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Harami is established amongst common Muslims. In this light read what is recorded in Arwa 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.] Clearly the old man heard scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah say Shaykh Dehalvi disrespects, insults, abuses the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This action of Shaykh Dehalvi is like a Harami mentioned in Ayaat, Q68:10/16 on basis of which old man made assumption Shaykh Dehalvi is Harami. This establishes Shaykh Dehalvi was known to be a insulter of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) during his life time and it was not something which was invented.

20.6 - Survive The Pakistani Bazaar Challenge, Say This In Bazaar:

(i) Mullah Zameel since you’re so confident Shaykh Dehalvi is innocent victim: Why don’t you demonstrate your confidence by reading/saying about Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust), mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (one whom has die and mixed into dust) ... in a Pakistani Bazaar. Go preach your Deobandism using this language in PUBLIC and record and upload the video on YouTube. (ii) No matter in which city he preaches using this language, these words, against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), he will not make home alive nor to grave in one piece, un-burnt. 100% he will by lynched and burnt to crisp. IF a Deobandi does not believe these words are repugnant, vile, despicable and believes Barelwis have invented FANTASY around these words than please go and demonstrate your confidence by doing what I suggested. (iii) Getting you Deobandi readers killed is not my objective. Please do not be stupid nor be with a stupid wanting to try his luck attempting this. This suggestion is ONLY to Deoband Mullahs especially one who wrote article I am responding to and the one’s are enjoying lamb, chicken and other delicious treats due to your Masjid Chanda.

21.0 – Appendix From Difa e Ahle Sunnat, Mullah Sajid’s Claim Milna Means To Bury:

(i) At the end of his article Mullah Zameel directed the readers: “For more citations showing the phrase Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd used means to be buried, see the following passage from Difa’ Ahl Sunnat: “Therefore in Jami ul-Lughaat, Volume 2, Page 565, MILNA (to mix) has meaning of DAFAN HONA (to bury/to be buried) and …” Mullah Zameel also provided Urdu contents pages of pages 770, 771, and 772. (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed the believers: “O you who believe! If an evil-doer (Fasiq) comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” [Ref: Q49:6] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “‘It is enough of a lie for a man that he narrates everything he hears.” [Ref: Muslim, Introduction, Hadith 9, here.] (iii) I have had many encounters with Mullah Sajid Khan and he was always caught doing something unacademic and despite being caught red handed with pants down engaged in unacademic practices but he never apologised or displayed any sign of Haya (shame). It has been nearly a decade I have had no contact with him phone or otherwise and I confident he hasn’t changed.

20.1 – Mullah Sajid And Shameless Plagiarism:

(i) Mullah Sajid Khan has, in literal words, copied than pasted portions of books written by Deobandi scholarship before him to ‘WRITE’ his magnum opus unacademic plagiarius. Mullah Sajid on page 770, here, has plagiarised Shaykh Sarfaraz Khan Safdar’s book Ibaraat e Akabir’s page 76, here. This is just one example. (v) Mullah Sajid’s book has been comprehensively responded to by Sunni Aalim Qari Arshad Mas’ud in title, Tahaffuz Ahle Sunnat Wa Jammat, here. Only three volumes are available online but I have been informed 14/15 volumes have been written and published, and more are in progress.

21.2 – Author OF Ibaraat e Akabir Is The Origin OF Lie Milna Means To Be Buried:

(i) Shaykh Sarfaraz on page 78 of his book writes MILNA in Jami ul-Lughat means DAFAN HONA (to be buried) and in Muneer ul-Lughat  here. On page 770 Mullah Sajid in his book recycles the same lie, here.

21.3 - Mullah Sajid’s Claim, The Reality, Response To Milna Means DAFAN HONA:

Claim: Milna means DAFAN HONA. (i) In unlikely case MILNA does mean DAFAN HONA than Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to mix into dust) would mean mitti mein dafan honay wala (one to be buried in soil). This is what Maulvi Sajid wants readers to believe. (ii) The Reality: There is no entry on MILNA in said dictionary. You can see two versions of same dictionary, here. IF there is another version which does have it than Deobandism and this Mullah Firawn is under Shar’ri burden to provide proof of claim they have made: “… the Prophet said: ‘The proof is due from the claimant, and the oath is due from the one the claim is made against.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B13, H1341, here.] (iii) The Response: In Feroz ul-Lughat, page 1285, word MILNA is recorded but words DAFAN HONA or any such meaning is not recorded in it, here. Another dictionary named Jami ul-Lughat – alternative name – Nawadir ul-Lughat, compiled by Maulvi Muhammad Rafi’i Dar ul-Uloom Deoband’s graduate records MILNA but does not mention DAFAN HONA as one of its meaning, here. I also checked Muneer ul-Lughat, here, and no surprise MILNA once again has no mention of DAFAN HONA. Farhang Aasifi’a has a very exhaustive list of contexts in which MILNA is used but DAFAN HONA is not part of that extensive list, here. And I also checked Jhangir ul-Lughat to see IF MILNA has claimed meaning, here, and I was disappointed to see there is no such mention. My research continued into Noor ul-Lughat and once again MILNA had no association with DAFAN HONA, here. Six dictionaries later I am out of Husn al-Zann. IF I recall rightly, every single dictionary quoted above has MILNA meaning to-mix/mixing and in this light Taqwiyat ul-Iman meaning is as it was said by Muslims and not as argued by Deobandis. (iv) Mullah Sajid is actually copy pasting claim that MILNA means …

21.4 - Responding To - IF MILNA Means As Claimed By Deobandi Mullahs:

(i) Idiomatic expressions have definitive meanings associated with them in dictionaries. Traditionally such expressions are not subjected to Taweel and no effort is made to turn them away from their literal obvious meaning. Nor other meanings of words employed in expression are explored to arrive at new meanings. This has no precedence in Urdu language and literature. Hence MILNA cannot change literal obvious reading of phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) nor its recorded meaning in dictionaries. (ii) Mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) literally denotes decomposition and to mix into soil/dust as dust. It is used to degrade and insult a deceased person when one employs it regarding another such as mitti mein milaana (i.e. to mix another into dust). (iii) IF MILNA means DAFAN HONA (to be buried) even than it cannot compel us to ignore how and why this phrase mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) came into Urdu usage – i.e. decomposition in grave. Hence such Taweel are rejected and invalid more so when it becomes apparent that no grammarian/linguist has made Taweel of MEIN to mean SAY, and nor Taweel of MILNA (to mix) to mean DAFAN HONA (to be buried) while discussing expression mitti mein milna (to mix into dust/soil), or related expressions. In conclusion lie that came from Maulvi Sajid Khan will go to his grave and over time this lie will only add to evil burden he carries.

21.5 - Appendix - Khaq And Mitti Mein Milna Means Dafan Hona:

Mullah Sajid Khan writes which Mullah Barelwism quoted: “… and in Muneer ul-Lughaat, Page 90, khaq mein milna (to mix into dust) meaning to dafan hona (to be buried). In Noor ul-Lughat mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) means dafan hona (to be buried) and than to prove meaning is authentic  poetical-verse is relied on: Mein to khaq ka putla yoon hi tha, Qaza nay aur mitti mein mila deeya.(Poet: Shad) (Noor ul-Lughat, Volume4, Page1189). Here mitti mein milaa deeya (mixed into dust) has meaning of mitti mein dafan hona (to be buried in soil).”

21.6 - Muneer ul-Lughat Entry Record Khaq Mein Milna And Our Response:

I checked Miraat e Muneer aka Muneer ul-Lughat and referenced was legitimate, here, and it does say khaq mein milna (to mix into dust) means dafan hona (to be buried) but it also records another meaning mit-jana (to become non-existing). IF we just go by dictionary meanings and ignore obvious, natural, apparent, first to smack you in the face meaning of mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) even than it is a phrase prohibited by RA’INA verse, quoted many times earlier in the article: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104]

21.7 - Noor ul-Lughat Entry Record For Mitti Mein Milna And Our Response:

(ii) I had look into Noor ul-Lughat on basis of which Mullah Sajid Khan claimed that it records mitti mein milna to mean dafan hona. I present to you all entries under mitti in Noor ul-Lughat and let you see that there is no entry of mitti mein milna, here. Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahima-hu-llah) decried Deobandi Mullahs inventing bogus books and quotes a century ago in his Abhas e Akhira, here, and a century later Deobandis are still using those inventions and inventing new. Mullah Sajid Khan is just continuation of this Deobandi evil Sunnah. Anyhow in Feroz ul-Lughat phrase, mitti mein mil-jana/milna, does not record dafan hona as its meaning but instead records: “Mitti mein mil jana (milna) -: “to mix in to soil, body turning into soil, to spoil (as in decomposition sense), going bad/off.” [Ref: Feroz ul-Lught, Page 1203, by Maulvi Feroz al-Deen, here.] For argument IF Noor ul-Lughat does record mitti mein milna to mean dafan hona even than there is no warrant to use mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil) in light of Ahadith and Qur’anic verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104]

22.0 - Appendix – Mitti Mein Mil Jana Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par:

Mullah Sajid Khan writes: “Similarly in Urdu’s most authoritative dictionary, Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, mitti mein mil jana (to mix into dust) meanings are as mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil) and than following statement is quoted: Jab pani ruskhsat ho jata heh to baqi sirf mitti reh jati he. (When water leaves than what remains is only soil). Jissay qabarstan chorr atay hen keh mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay. (see translation in section 22.3 - iii). (Qissay Teray Afsanay Hen, Page 311) Here mitti kay sath mil jahay (to come into contact with soil) is in meaning of mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil).”

22.1 – Urdu Lughat Tareekhi … And Mullah Sajid’s Half Deception:

(i) Mullah Sajid Khan referenced dictionary Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, here. I had to go through number of volumes to locate mitti and HALF of Mullah Sajid Khan’s song and dance has no basis in the said dictionary, here. I have presented entire mitti section to readers once again. Page 408 has entry mitti mein milna/mil-jana (to mix into soil). It records that it means dafan hona (to be buried), but no mention of poetical verse, and nothing to substantiate his deduction: “Here mitti kay sath mil jahay (to come into contact with soil) is in meaning of mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil).” At least I cannot accuse Mullah Sajid telling a complete lie: “Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” [Ref: Q2:42] Mullah Sajid is bit like the Shayateen the sorcerers depend upon and they only misguide. There is another reason due to which I believe Mullah Sajid Khan invented this poetical verse. (ii) I could not find, Qissay Teray Afsanay Hen, on internet. My educated guess is it doesn’t exist and IF it does what Mullah Sajid Khan attributed to it does not. IF source does exist and mitti mein mil jana (to mix into soil) is explained by mitti ka mitti kay saath milna/jana (meeting of soil with soil), or mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (so soil can meet with soil) even than one should consider what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] To use such words and phrases despite the prohibition amounts to at minimum a sin IF done without malicious intent and greater than sin eradication of good deeds: "O believers! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak loudly to him as you do to one another, or your deeds will become void while you are unaware." [Ref: Q49:2] We know Shaykh Dehavli added Tayz words in Taqwiyat ul-Iman knowingly and that establishes intent to use such evil language as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). This intent would make usage of such language Kufr and Shaykh Dehalvi liable.

22.2 – Mitti Mitti Kay Saath Mil Jahay VS Mitti Mein Milnay Wala:

(i) Qissay Teray Afsanay allegedly uses idiom, mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (soil meets with soil), which is in no way offensive neither insulting. It is a polite and respectful humility imbued expression and nothing like mitti mein milnay wala (one to be mixed into dust/soil). Hence it does not help Deobandi case. IF you don’t believe me take both these to a Urdu speaker. Tell him/her both mean burial and ask: Which one is appropriate/inappropriate expression?

22.3 - Closer Critical Examination Of Poetical Verse By Mullah Sajid:

(i) Here is a closer look at the ‘poetical’ verse. Pani here literally means water but in this ‘poetical’ verse implies soul. Mitti literally means soil but in verse it means, dead body. Phrase mitti sath mil jahay here means, to connect with soil, but in ‘poetical’ verse it means grave. In this light poetical verse means, When soul leaves what only remains is dead body which is left in graveyard so dead body comes into contact with grave. This much seems sensible until a closer look. (ii) The puke inducing ‘poem’ is suspect. ‘Poetical’ verse literally says; when water leaves than only soil remains which than is taken to grave so, (a) soil can mix into soil. (b) soil can make contact with soil. Where as in reality body is put in grave, than water leaves body and what remains behind after months/years of decomposition is soil. (iii) In simple terms literal reading poetical verse states, decomposition takes place before deceased is moved to graveyard. Whereas reality is deceased is moved to graveyard than body decomposes. There is no rabt (connection/coherence) between literal and allegorical meanings. IF body decomposed than the remains were buried this would make sense because it can be said poet alluded literal to convey allegorical meanings. We all know this is not the case.

22.4 - Demonstrating How Poets Build Allegorical Meanings Based On Truths:

(i) Let me demonstrate rabt/coherence between literal and allegorical. Poetical Verse: Changi mandi sajran koloon o kaee wari ho jandi. Yar yaran da gila nahin karday asal pareet jinna di. [Ref: Saif ul-Mulook, by Hadhrat Mian Muhammad Baksh]  Literal Translation: Sometimes good and bad is committed by friends/friend against (you). Friend with true love does not complain about friends/friend. Metaphorical Translation: Good and bad is ordained by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) against his servants. Those who truly love Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) do not complain about what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has destined. (ii) This demonstrates allegorical meaning is built upon a true statement. Mullah Sajid Khan’s ‘POETICAL’ verses are stupid and meaning indicated in section one is built upon non-sense (i.e. body decomposes than it is taken to graveyard). Hence my assessment is Mullah Sajid Khan the Lanti invented this poetical verse like his elders invented many others to justify Taweelaat of insulting/disrespectful statements in their books. (iii) Poets are accurate in their language and they build allegorical insinuations into verses based on concrete statements not utter rubbish. This incoherence you would expect from some rookie try-hard poet and Mullah Sajid Khan is only candidate. This was second reason due to which I suspect Mullah Sajid Khan Naqshbandi invented the poetical verses.

22.5– Mullah Sajid Khan Typical Deobandi Caught Red Handed Once Again:

(i) I had made certain conclusions and judgments about Mullah Sajid ‘inventing poetical verses’ which in light of latest developments require omission. This will require a lot time. Next revision IF ever I will make changes to this article to remove such allegations. Mullah Sajid Khan the pride and joy of Deobandism caught once again with his pants down. (ii) He writes: “Similarly in Urdu’s most authoritative dictionary, Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, mitti mein mil jana’s (to mix into dust) meanings are as mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil) and than following …” (iii) In Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool par right at the bottom of page 406, here, here, you will see entry as: --- mitti kay saath mil jana (to make contact with soil). Three dashed lines are representing missing word, a prefix to each entry – i.e. mitti (ka). Hence it should be read as, mitti (ka) mitti kay saath mil jana (soil coming to contact with soil). (iv) Mullah Sajid deception incarnate stated poetical verses are under, mitti mein mil jana’s (to mix into dust) where as in reality these word verses are under entry, mitti (ka) mitti kay saath mil jana (soil coming to contact with soil i.e. burial). That is deception number one.

22.6 – Mullah Sajid Distorting Mitti Mein Mil Jana Via Mitti Kay Saath Mil Jana:

(i) Following is what is recorded in dictionary under mentioned: “mitti (ka) mitti kay saath mil jana (soil coming to contact with soil) -: Bey jan jism ka mitti mein mil jana (Lifeless body mixing into dust), mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil). Jab pani ruskhsat ho jata heh to baqi sirf mitti reh jati he (when water leaves than what remains is only soil). Jissay qabarstan chorr atay hen keh mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (which than is taken to grave so soil can make contact with soil). (Qissay Teray Afsanay Hen, Page 311).” [Ref: Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, Vol7, Page406, here.] In following you will notice Mullah Sajid very deceptively passing meaning of idiom, mitti (ka) mitti kay saath mil jana (soil coming to contact with soil) as meaning of controversial idiom; mitti mein mil jana (to mix into dust😞 “Similarly in Urdu’s most authorative dictionary, Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, mitti mein mil jana’s (to mix into dust) meanings are as mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil) and than following statement is quoted: Jab pani ruskhsat ho jata heh to baqi sirf mitti reh jati he, (When water leaves than what remains is only soil). Jissay qabarstan chorr atay hen keh mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (see translation in section 22.3 - iii). (Qissay Teray Afsanay Hen, Page 311) Here mitti kay sath mil jahay (to come into contact with soil) is in meaning of mitti mein dafan ho jana (to be buried in soil).” That’s the deception number two.

22.7 – Connection Between Poetical Verse And Idiom, And Why Deception:

(i) IF you pay attention to idiom: mitti (ka) mitti kay saath mil jana jana (soil coming to contact with soil), and following underlined words of poetical verse; Jissay qabarstan chorr atay hen keh mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (which than is taken to grave so soil can make contact with soil); you will come to realize there is connection between them. IF bold words of poetical verse were in context of words, mitti mein mil jana (to mix into dust), than there would be no connection. (ii) Why would Mullah Sajid do this? Answer One: It is the evil Sunnah which his beloved senior Deobandi scholarship invented and our Mullah Sajid has no other choice but to WALK on path of DECEPTION they have paved. Answer Two: His attempted to use poem which uses polite expression mitti (ka) mitti kay saath mil jahay (so soil meets with soil) in context of mitti mein mil jana (to mix into soil/dust) because he wanted to convey words mitti mein milna (to mix into soil/dust) and mitti mein mil jana (to mix into soil/dust) are understood as and are a polite, respectable idiomatic expressions by cream of Urdu literature. (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know (it).” [Ref: Q2:146] “So woe  to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned.” [Ref: Q2:78/79] Mullah Sajid like Yahood is concealing truth, distorting books to support and legitimize major act of Kufr:  “Indeed, those who purchase disbelief (in exchange) for faith - never will they harm Allah at all, and for them is a painful punishment.” [Ref: Q3:177]

23.0 - Diwan Sair, Naseem Dehalvi, Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par:

“Like this mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) is said to be an idiom (than) its meanings are stated has mayyit ko mitti dena (putting soil to deceased-body), wraping deceased-body in coffin and burial are stated. Next poetical verses in accordance with meaning are stated that: ‘Dunya mein aitibar he kia haal wa jah ka. Mitti gada kay haath say milli heh shah ko.’ (What reliability is of world’s status and prestige. King has received soil by hand of begger.) (Diwan Sair, Vol2, Page342) Here mitti milli heh is in meaning of putting soil on deceased. Similar to this, one meaning stated is, to be buried, and in accordance with this meaning poetical-verse will be stated: Naseem ada’a say shikwa kia. (Naseem what complain do I have against enemies). Hamein yaroon nay mitti mein milaa deeya. (We have been mixed into soil by friends). (Naseem Dehalvi, Page87) {Ref: Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par, Vol17, Page207}.”

23.1 – Mullah Sajid Doing His What He Does Best, Academic Deception:

(i) Mullah Sajid writes: “Like this mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) is said to be an idiom (than) its meanings are stated has mayyit ko mitti dena (putting soil to deceased-body) … Next poetical verses in accordance with meaning are stated that …” This is another bold lie and deception number 3. Mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) has no such meanings. Here is scanned image of entry mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), here. In reality meaning which he referenced are under another idiom mitti milna (to meet dust) and his said poetical verse is found under same idiom, here. (ii) Mullah Sajid writes: “Here mitti milli heh is in meaning of putting soil on deceased. Similar to this…” There is no usage of words mitti milli heh (has got soil) in poetical verse. He created an idiom based on poetical verse on-the-go. He did nothing wrong. Idiomatic expression mitti milna (to meet dust) and approximate; mitti ka haath say milna (to get soil from hand), or mitti haath say milti/milli (to get soil from hand), or Mullah Sajid’s mitti milli heh (has got soil) can be derived from poetical verse. All are respectable expressions meaning burial.

23.2 - Naseem Dehalvi’s Poetical Verse, Claim And The Truth, And Implications:

(i) Naseem Dehalvi’s poetical verse: “Similar to this, one meaning stated is, to be buried, and in accordance with this meaning poetical-verse will be stated: Naseem ada’a say shikwa kia. (Naseem what complain do I have against enemies). Hamein yaroon nay mitti mein milaa deeya. (We have been mixed into soil by friends).” In the context you will note Mullah Sajid is insinuating one meaning of mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) is burial and in accordance with this meaning Naseem Dehalvi’s poetical verse is quoted. When I looked into source there was no Naseem Dehalvi’s poetical verse under mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), here. Instead poetical verse employed by Mullah Sajid is under another idiomatic expression mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust), mitti mein milaa dena (to mix someone into dust), mitti milaa dena (to mix dust), here. Another typical Mullah Sajid’s lie and deception number 4. (ii) Naseem Dehalvi’s actual poetical verse: “Naseem ada’a say shikwa kia pas az marg (Naseem what complain do I have against enemies, after death). Hamein yaroon nay mitti mein milaa deeya (We have been mixed into soil by friends).” Underlined was omitted by Mullah Sajid Khan. This omission seems to be accidental as it does not advance Deobandi stance. (iii) Anyhow! Readers can see that usage of mitti mein mila deeya (mixing one into dust) according Naseem Dehalvi is contemptible, disgusting practice which an enemy should engage in but his companions are engaged in it. This demonstrates according to Naseem Dehalvi’s understanding mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) and mitti mein milaana (to mix someone into dust) carry negative connotations.

24.0 - Appendix At The End - Establishing And Pointing Out Something Important:

(i) Urdu idioms: (1) khaq mein milna (to mix into dust), (2) mitti mein milna (to mix into dust), (3) mitti mein milaa deeya (to mix another into dust), (4) mitti mein mil jana  (to mix into dust), (5) mitti mitti kay saath mil jahay (so dust has met with dust), (6) mayyit ko mitti dena (to give dust to deceased, or to give deceased to dust), (7) mitti milli heh (dust has contacted, or has got dust), here. (ii) First 4 in order of appearance carry natural and apparent meaning of mixing with dust as in dust after death and decay. It is only when one looks into dictionaries one will encounter meaning of these four as burial of dead. What these dictionaries omit is that usage of any of these by one for another would be due to contempt, to impart humiliation, and expression of self-deprecating with intention of expressing humility. Five, six, and seven are not linguistically connected with four mentioned. Only connection they have with them is that they share meaning of burial of dead in grave. (iii) First FOUR do and last THREE do not carry insinuations of decomposition leading to state of dust. Hence to put them in same basket is like sending a Kafir to paradise. These don’t two sets do not belong in the same category because one set is insulting, belittling, and other is ordinary expression without insult, disrespect and belittling insinuations.

25.0 - Minor Harmless Changes In Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Passage In Discussion:

(i) In statement mar kar mitti mein milnay wala end of paragraph wording has been changed. I have encountered three variations: “ … banda hi banda heh.” Asad Book Depot, here. Maktaba Nadvia, here. “ … banda banda hi heh.” Dar Salafiyyah, here. “ … banda hi heh.”  Maktaba Thanvi Deoband, here. Bayt ul-Quran, here. These alterations are inconsequential because they all convey meaning that human is human despite-all. (ii) Another variation is: “Phir mar kar Ilah nahin huwa banda hi heh.” Markaz Dawat Wal Irshad, here. This is only version which has this wording. “Phir mar kar khuda nahin ban gaya” Maktaba Thanvi Deoband, here. Once again both convey the same meaning (i.e. than after death human has not become an Ilah/god but remains human) just different way of conveying same. (iii) Maktaba Naeemia states: “Aksar paranay baap daday MUSHRIK JAHIL guzray hen (majority of olden fathers and grandfathers were polytheist ignorants).” In Maktaba Khalil version has slight change: “Aksar paranay baap daday JAHIL MUSHRIK guzray hen (mority of olden fathers grandfathers were ignorant polytheists.” This change in order of words does not distort the conveyed meaning.

25.1 – Taqwiyat ul-Iman An Evolving Text, Amendments, Omissions, Insertions Continue:

(i) I just recalled another alteration which was mentioned, here. Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Maktaba Khalil version records, Muslims will fall into Shirk (Shirk mein parr’h jawen gay), here, here. Maktaba Naeemia version records: Shirk mein bar’h jawen gay (will advance into Shirk), here. One insinuates WILL FALL and other means HAVING ALREADY FALLEN INTO SHIRK WILL ADVANCE FURTHER INTO SHIRK. (ii) Maktaba Khalil’s version in FOOTNOTE indicates that author has mentioned notions entertained about various idols and deities by idol-worshipers and Ahlu Ush-Shirk (people of polytheism). Which was indication contents have been omitted out of Maktaba Khalil’s print and when I checked Maktaba Naeemia’s version this was confirmed, here.

25.2 - Revealing Major Problematic Distortions In Taqwiyat ul-Iman:

I present to you three Urdu versions of Taqwiyat ul-Iman with three quotes and supporting evidence and some English versions. (i) Version ends on jo na kabi maray (one that does not die😞 ”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 …" This version is supported by Dar Salafiyyah, here. Asad Book Depot, here. Maktaba Nadvia, here. Maktaba Naeemia, here. Maktaba Salfiyya, here. (ii) Version which has na kabi kam howay (nor one that reduces) at the end of na kabi maray (one that does not die😞 ”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 nor is ever to reduce (na kabi maray na kabi kam howay). From this Hadith (we) learn, do not prostrate to any living, to to any dead, nor to any grave, or a (holy) place because …" This version has three prints supporting it. Shama Book agency, here. Maktaba Thanvi Deoband, here. Bayt ul-Quran, here. (iii) Version which completely distorts what was in original stating: “Meaning one or another day I will die and sleep in the bosom/lap of grave than I will not be deserving of prostration.” This is supported by Markaz Dawat Wal Irshad, here. Shaykh ul-Islam Academy, here. (iv) English version printed by Royal Asiatic Society in 1852: “Then I came to the Prophet and told him that the people of Herat worship their chief, and you are then most worthy of being worshipped. His Highness said to me, ‘Will you prostrate at my grave, IF you pass by it?’ I said, ‘No.’ Then, he said, ‘Do not worship me.’” The Proophet meant, that one day he would die, and return to the dust; and could not therefore be worthy of worship, and …” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Pages 362/362, here, 53/54, here, Translation by Mir Shahamat.] (v) “At this the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Then you must not do this too!” By this the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant to convey it to the people that the day would come when he (peace be upon him) would pass away and have an eternal sleep in the grave and then he (peace be upon him) would not be worthy of such prostrations.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page 74, here, here.]

25.4 - Taqwiyat ul-Iman Its Gradual Evolution, Fears, And Our Responsibility:

(i) I have highlighted evolution Taqwiyat ul-Iman has been subjected to by looking into just two paragraph which I had chance to compare. It would not be wrong to say that every new print of Taqwiyat ul-Iman introduces public to new changes. It contains omissions, additions, alterations, and deletions which publisher, or person ordering print desires. IF this ignoble practice of changing Taqwiyat ul-Iman at every print continues than I am afraid in an 100 year our great-grand-children will look into Taqwiyat ul-Iman and will not FIND contents which caused the Muslim scholarship to rise against Shaykh Dehalvi and his supporters. (ii) Deobandis are re-writing and changing history and it is upon us to hold them accountable and pass on what has been done by Deobandis so our descendants can recognize the enemies in their midst. Failure in this regard will only result researchers will accuse and arrive to conclusion Muslim enmity against Deobandism and Deobandi Mullahism had no truth to it. (iii) Taqwiyat ul-Iman is an evolving text. In some cases Deobandis and Wahhabis have been shamelessly distorting contents of original Taqwiyat ul-Iman to lessen crimes of Shaykh Dehalvi and in other changes are less meaningful but alterations none the less. (vi) Mullah Zameel moaned about Shaykh Abu Hasan distorting Taqwiyat ul-Iman. Now we will await IF he has GALL to condemn Mullah Sajid’s deceptions and other Deo-band’s (i.e. demon-group’s) minions involved in introducing changes to Taqwiyat ul-Iman which in years to come will enable plausible deniability and contents of Taqwiyat ul-Iman less concrete.

26.0 – Turning Shirk/Insult Away From Apparent According To Shaykh Dehalvi:

(i) Shayateen walking on path of Shaykh Dehalvi have spent their entire lives suggesting FAR-FETCHED meanings of what Shaykh Dehalvi wrote but the criminal and Shaytan incarnate taught: “Yes, IF he says, O Allah give me something for sake of Shaykh Abdul Qadir than it is correct/right. Meaning one should not utter such a word from which reeks stench of Shirk or disrespect. He is so magnificent and He is such an independent/unNeedy King that to hold accountable on a single point/deed and to reward on account of a single point/deed is His merit only. And this matter is completely senseless that (someone) apparently utters word of disrespect and than some other meaning is understood. There are many other ocasions in which one can speak in riddle and hidden-speech. What is there need for such (speech) in regards to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Shama Book Agency, Page75, here.] Shaykh Dehalvi deems it senseless to resort to suggesting FAR-FETCHED meanings to words which obviously/apparently denote insult, disrespect, and Shirk.

26.1 – Shaykh Dehalvi’s Teaching Literalism And Controversial Mitti Mein Milna:

Shaykh Dehalvi wrote that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said:“… 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 …“ [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] “… 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!" [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 88, Urdu] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not utter these words but Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi did use this language about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Who will continue to go against Shaykh Dehalvi’s words and resort to presenting FAR-FETCHED meanings to OBVIOUS, CLEAR, APPARENT, EXPLICIT language insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when he clearly deemed such actions as senseless according to this: “Meaning one should not utter such a word from which reeks stench of Shirk or disrespect. […] And this matter is completely senseless that (someone) apparently utters word of disrespect and than some other meaning is understood.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Shama Book Agency, Page75, here.] No Muslim will but Kafirs will persist and insist even when truth has been revealed to them.

26.2 – Literalism Reading Is Insulting And Degrading Is Agreed Upon:

(i) Deoband’s Shaykh Sarfarz writes: “IF his intended meaning is this (God forbid) that honorable Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) blessed body will turn to soil/dust like it commonly occurs with bodies of men turning to dust/soil and as it is proven textual evidences and visual confirmation than this meaning is certainly objectionable/condemnable.” [Ref: Ibaraat e Akabir, Page76, Shaykh Sarfarz Khan Safdar, here.] (ii) Deobandi Shaykh and author of Chiragh e Sunnat Syed Firdos Shah Qasoori in rather comical style confesses literal reading of Shaykh Dehalvi’s statement is insulting by accusing us in reverse – you Barelwis use it hence you’re guilty and we are not: “Mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) - this word’s two meanings are possible: (i) becoming dust than mixing into dust, (ii) to touch soil, to attach to soil. Barelwi persons take the first meaning (out of two) and they distort it and in their (religious) gatherings say, creed of Deobandis is that Hadhoor (alayhis salam) have become dust. O calamity they say he has become dust. Yet in this book you have read the creed and statements of honorable scholars of Deoband (in regards to mixing into dust). Hadhrat (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has not turned to dust and nor this is our creed but these insulting words every moments are on their tongues. Hence may dust be in their mouth because they false accuse us and in holy honorable stations of Hadhoor (alayhis salam) they use such ugly and unclean words repeatedly.” [Ref: Chiragh e Sunnat, Page240, here.] You read even Qasoor’s resident Khohta deems natural obvious literal apparent and 1^st meaning to come to mind understanding of words mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) as understood by Muslims as insulting, degrading, and disrespecting Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I ask Shaykh Qasoori: How the Muslims standing against warning others Muslims about repugnant language in Taqwiyat ul-Iman becomes guilty of insulting Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but a Kafir who wrote it; Kafir who argues such language is innocent are above any and all blame? (iii) In literal sense everyone including Deobandi scholarship agrees statement is indeed degrading, insulting and disrespecting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which is why Deobandi scholarship is engaged in presenting FAR-FETCHED meanings of Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s statement. This brings us back to Shaykh Dehalvi’s statement: “Meaning one should not utter such a word from which reeks stench of Shirk or disrespect. […] And this matter is completely senseless that (someone) apparently utters word of disrespect and than some other meaning is understood.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Shama Book Agency, Page75, here.] (iv) Now you’re at liberty to draw your conclusion about what Shaykh Dehalvi’s usage of mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust).

26.3 – Shaykh Dehalvi’s Principle OF Literalism And Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam):

Shaykh Dehalvi wrote: “Yes, IF he says, O Allah give me something for sake of Shaykh Abdul Qadir than it is correct/right. Meaning one should not utter such a word from which reeks stench of Shirk or disrespect. He is so magnificent and He is such an independent/un-Needy King that to hold accountable on a single point/deed and to reward on account of a single point/deed is His merit only. And this matter is completely senseless that (someone) apparently utters word of disrespect and than some other meaning is understood. There are many other occasions in which one can speak in riddle and hidden-speech. What is there need for such (speech) in regards to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Shama Book Agency, Page75, here.] There are two matters which need elaboration: (i) matter of creed, (ii) matter of insult and disrespect. Rules are in regards both are not same despite Shaykh Dehalvi insinuating both are governed by same.

26.4 - The Correct/Incorrect, What I Agree/Disagree With Shaykh Dehalvi And Why:

(i) I absolutely agree with Shaykh Dehalvi that in regards to words, phrases, idioms used to disrespect and abuse than such should be understood and their usage be judged on Urf Aam (common parlance) as understood by people speaking the language i.e. obvious and apparent meanings without engaging in assigning special meanings to words in idioms etc. In matters related creed and what constitutes acceptance and rejection of Tawheed/Shirk apparent expressed words and other details should be considered such as actual creed, motives/intentions and objectives to make a judgments alongside other circumstances whose absence could impede a proper investigation. (ii) Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi suggests Shirk has to be understood on apparent obvious uttered words and not these details. This suggestion is evidently wrong when looked at in light following: “And thus did We show Abraham the realm of the heavens and the earth that he would be among the certain (in his faith). So when the night covered him (with darkness), he saw a star. He said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "I like not those that disappear." And when he saw the moon rising, he said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray." And when he saw the sun rising, he said: "This is my lord; this is greater." But when it set, he said: "O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah. Indeed, I have turned my face toward He who created the heavens and the earth, inclining toward truth, and I am not of those who associate others with Allah." [Ref: Q6:75/79] Which idiot will accuse Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) of engaging in major Shirk obvious based on principle methodology of Shaykh Dehalvi? (iii) These are very obvious clear undeniable words of Shirk yet no one will dare to charge a Prophet and Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was upon Shirk and disrespected/insulted Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Why? His true creed is of Tawheed, his intention, and his objective is in line with Tawheed and rejection of Shirk. His belief in Tawheed will not be rejected, negated or questioned irrespective of what his words may outwardly insinuate. (iv) In context of this incident no Khariji will wag his tongue against Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) but these Kafirs are ambushing Muslims over ambiguous statements with edicts of Kufr/Shirk, negating their Islam and Iman, and Halaling their blood, property, wives and daughters upon themselves – going against the prophetic teaching: “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: To refrain from (killing) a person who says: (i) “There is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his actions.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170, here.]

27.0 – A Closer Look Into Mar Kar Mitti Mein Milnay Wala Text:

(i) Mullah Zameel ar-Rahman used Maktaba Naeemia’s Urdu version of Taqwiyat ul-Iman: “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 (na kabi maray). 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] Maktaba Naeemia’s version relied on a source which had expunged words na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (not one that die nor is ever to reduce) and these words existed in original Taqwiyat ul-Iman as demonstrated by Shama Book Agency version: “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 nor is ever to reduce (na kabi maray na kabi kam howay). 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 81, here, Shama Book Angency.] Word ka’m (i.e. to reduce) in Feroz ul-Lughat, Page1026, here, dictionary also means tho’rra (i.e. a little) and with it shares related words. Kam howay is old Urdu expression whose modern equivalent is kam ho (to reduce). In Farhang Asifia, Volume 3, Page 554 records entry on kam (less). On Page 555, here, closest expression to kam howay/ho is kam hona. Both entries share same meanings as Feroz ul-Lughat. Despite the dictionary meanings Shaykh Dehalvi used na kabi kam howay (does not every reduce) to mean does not ever decomposes but I will go along with literal apparent common parlance meaning of kam howay.  This leads to question why were the words removed?

27.1 – Answering Why Words Na Kabi Kam Howay Were Removed:

(i) What is correlation between saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is mar kar mitti mein milnay walay (one whom is to die and mix into dust) and between  Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)  the One na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever to dies nor is ever to reduce)? (ii) All living matter with exception of Prophets; death causes their bodies do decompose. They decompose and mix into dust as dust but for that to happen another thing also has to happen to body and that is deceased’s body must reduce in shape, size, and weight. This establishes both phrase; mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) and kam hona/howay (to reduce) are connected with each other; I would say these two phrases have been used to convey same meanings. (iii) Taqiwyat ul-Iman’s words: (1) “… mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) …” V.S. Mein bi aik din mar kar kabi kam honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and reduce). (2) “… na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever die nor is ever to reduces) …” V.S. Na kabi maray na kabi mitti mein milay (is not ever die nor is ever to mix into dust). Words mitti mein milna (to mix into dust) and kam howay (to reduce) in the above quote explain each other hence interchangable as demonstrated: “He then said: Do not do so. ”Meaning, I will one day die (and) reduce (after decay). Hence how am I deserving of prostration! Prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor one that mixes into dust."  (iv) In conclusion words na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever to die nor is ever to reduce) were expunged from earliest Taqwiyat ul-Iman prints because these establish phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala walay (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is upon its literal meanings. I will explain in another way.

27.2 - Taweel Fraud Exposed With Shaykh Dehalvi’s And Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s Help:

Shaykh Dehalvi wrote: “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 nor is ever to reduce (na kabi maray na kabi kam howay). 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 81, here, Shama Book Angency.] I will be speaking in language of Taqwiyat ul-Iman and will apply its logic and principle to demonstrate phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is upon its apparent, literal meanings through question and answer. (i) Who IS deserving of prostration? Prostration is only due to the One being who does not die nor one that reduces. Who is that being? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! Why is He deserving of prostration? He will not die and mix into dust (hence will NOT reduce thus deserving of prostration). (ii) Who is NOT deserving of prostration? One whom dies and reduces. Who is that being according to Shaykh Dehalvi and Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s passage? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Why is he NOT deserving of prostration? He will die and mixt into dust (hence reduce thus NOT deserving of prostration). (iii) The key which establishes beyond argument phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is upon its literal apparent meaning is na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever to dies nor is ever to reduce). This phrase serves as a and was issued as a principle: “… Sajdah to ussi pak zaat ko heh, ke’h na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (… prostration is only due to Holy Being one that does not die nor is ever to reduce).” (iv) Dying and mixing into dust as dust is connected with dying and reducing. According to logic and principle of Shaykh Dehalvi in Taqwiyat ul-Iman death and reduction than mixing into dust is reason due to which prostration to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not legitimate. Prostration is legitimate right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because He does not die and mix into dust through reduction/decomposition. This establishes Shaykh Dehalvi intended literal obvious meanings of phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) and not dictionary meanings. (v) This was FINAL nail in the head of KAFIR.

28.0 - Establishing Shaykh Dehalvi’s Intent To Insult The Messenger OF Allah:

(i) Shaykh Dehalvi used following words about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… mein bi aik din mar kar mitti mein milnay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust) …” He could have used same mar kar mitti mein milnay wala expression for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to keep in with the ongoing contextual theme of death and decay. Meaning: Prostration is only due to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because He does not mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust). Shaykh Dehalvi realized words he used were inappropriate hence he did not use same for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Instead he used more respectful and appropriate tone of language:“… na kabi maray na kabi kam howay (is not ever die nor is ever to reduce) …” (ii) Alternatively Shaykh Dehalvi also could have used tone of na kabi maray ka kabi kam howay (is not ever die nor is ever to reduces) when writing regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instead of mein bi aik din mar kar kam honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and mix into dust). Meaning he could have wrote regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 Mein bi aik din mar kar kabi kam honay wala hoon (I will too one day die and reduce). (iii) The switch in language indicates Shaykh Dehalvi noticed tone of language, mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is harsh and inappropriate hence when writing about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Shaykh Dehalvi changed disrespectful tone of language. This demonstrates Shaykh Dehalvi with intent used disrespectful language in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which he did not deem appropriate for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

29.0 – Unacademic, Abusive, Insulting Language And Deobandi Master-ship:

(i) In the beginning I advised readers to be patient about bad language and also stated I have a very good reason. Throughout I have used words about Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman and other Deobandi scholars as, Dajjal, Khohta, Shaytan, Dalal, Kameena, Bad-Damagh, Firawn and even went FAR as to indirectly use Kutta. Why I used such language? It was employed as a tool to convey, hard hitting, shock and awe dispensing, and truth revealing lesson about how game of DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY can make obvious common parlance words of disrespect and insult as harmless. In this vain in coming sections I will proceed and present dictionary meaning of words which readers might have assumed I employed in common parlance meanings which denote insult and abuse. (ii) Mind you the art of Halaling abuse with help of dictionaries; putting spins on insults, disrespect, and degrading language is copyrighted practice of Deobandi scholarship. They mastered this ignoble and despicable practice by playing word game I call, DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY. I am no way as capable as they are. They have 200 years of experience in doing this and I am just coming out of my shell. I have watched and been learnt by Deobandi experts hence I will demonstrate some skill while engaging in this ignoble evil Sunnah Deobandi senior scholarship originated.

29.1 - Playing Dictionary Game To Civilize Common Parlance Perceived Insults:

(i) Dajjal in Urdu means, liar; one who conceals truth and it is in this meaning I used it, here. (ii) Khohta is a Punjabi word and in Punjabi it is used in same meaning as Urdu word Gadha, in English, DONKEY. In Urdu/Punjabi idiom word Gadha/Khohta is used to mean, NADAAN (immature), here. (iii) Shaytan when it is used in Urdu as SIFT (attribute) it means, rebel, misguided, mischievous, tribulation-monger, here. (iv) Dalal in common parlance in Urdu and English would mean pimp but I did not use it in this meaning. Dalal in Urdu is used in meaning, one who seals/makes a deal i.e. broker,  here. (v) Kameena in Urdu common parlance is used to mean degenerate but in Urdu it also means Ocha. Ocha means shallow, and it is in this meaning I used Kameena, here. (vi) Bad-Damagh in Urdu common parlance is used in meaning of idiot/stupid but it is also used in meaning of nazuk mizaaj meaning overly-sensitive and I employed it in this meaning, here. (vii) Lanti in Urdu common parlance means cursed but it also is used to mean bad-naseeb. In English that would mean ill-fated, unfortunate, misfortunate, here. (viii) Firawn in Urdu when used as an attribute it is used to mean disobedient (na-farmaan), rebel (baaghi), a title of king and it is in this last meaning I used Mullah Firawn i.e. Mullah-King, here. (ix) Kutta in Urdu literally means dog and when used as a description it means Kameena (degenerate), Ghulam (slave), Zaleel (disgraced, degenerate). I used it in meaning of Ghulam, here. (x) Harami in common parlance is go to insult and it means bastard but in Urdu it is also used in meaning of Shareer (mischievous, mischief-monger i.e. trouble-maker). It was in this last meaning I used word Harami, here.

29.2 – Truth About Language I Employed, Dictionary Meanings Do Not Change Reality:

(i) I personally make no excuse admitting about the type of language I employed in common parlance is unacceptable and some words such as Dalal, Kutta, Harami are outrageously insulting/abusive. Any Urdu speaker or even Punjabi speaker will be able to tell you this. Words I have used are exclusively used to insult, degrade, disrespect and belittle regardless how I have spun their usage with the help of dictionary. Everyone speaking Urdu knows these words have no civilized usage. No intelligent, educated, self-respecting individual would allow such words to be used about them without some type of reaction regardless of what dictionaries record. (ii) Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is no different when compared to language I have employed. You can Halal it with dictionary strength and to be honest I didn’t encounter an abusive word which I couldn’t civilize with aid of dictionary and that is telling you something.

29.3 - The Nuclear Expression And Something Serious To Think About:

(i) You might have assumed Muhammed Ali is exaggerating so I introduce you to nuclear option, MADAR CH*D. In Urdu and in English phrase used too commonly to insult and abuse someone through their mother. In Urdu it is MADAR CH*D and in English it literally means MOTHER F*CKER. In dictionary you will see one of its meanings is SHAREER which means mischievous and mischief-monger, here. How FAR is calling someone TROUBLE-MAKER compared to calling someone MOTHER F*CKER in Urdu and English? You be the judge. Would it not possible to civilize on dictionary strength lesser abusive words such as mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust)? (ii) Most obvious, apparent, clear, undeniable words of abuse, insult … can be civilized on strength of dictionaries. Words Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi used i.e. mar kar mitti mein milnay wala in Urdu are obvious, apparent, clear, undeniable expression of insult and abuse. Deobandi scholarship on back of dictionaries is arguing nothing wrong was written by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi.

29.4 – The Possibilities OF Halaling With Aid Of Dictionary Are Endless:

(i) Where will the rabbit hole end? What IF Shia employ abusive language such as mar kar mitti mein milna wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust), mar kar mitti mein mil gaya (died and mixed into dust) in regards to Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu)? Then on back of Urdu dictionaries civilize their abuse. Will you than believe them? What IF someone resorted to MADAR CH*D Shaykh Thanvi and used it in meaning of SHAREER? Will you than believe him? (ii) Surrender your evil methodology of making Taweel of insult, abuse and disrespect before consequences of this evil Sunnah originated by your senior scholarship becomes too monstrous to even Taweel making Kafireen to bare. We Muslims make no Taweel nor accept Taweel of Akbar (major) or Asghar (minor) abuse. Especially not when the intended target is Prophets, Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Companions. We only seek repentance and that you desist and cease. (iii) In context phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) is one such phrase when used in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) we demand nothing but repentance and that you cease and desist.

30.0 - True Objective In Using Common Parlance Insulting Language:

There were FOUR reasons why I employed such language: (i) To demonstrate and expose Deobandi scholarship’s double standard. Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman and Deobandis who speak Urdu without consulting a dictionary will judge me as criminal on basis of common parlance (i.e. Urf Aam). When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insulted in common parlance by Deobandi senior scholarship Deobandis present Taweels with aid of dictionaries than expect the Muslims to accept what they have invented. Taweels which they will not accept in regards to their own beloved Mullahs and their loved ones. (ii) To demonstrate that even most obvious, apparent, clear, undeniably abusive words and language with aid of dictionaries can be civilized and presented as IF nothing bad was written. Deobandi scholarship has taken upon to civilize and invent ingenious excuses to civilize insulting language used against Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, and Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri. (iii) To demonstrate beyond shadow of doubt regardless what Taweels I present innate sense in every native Urdu speaker will tell him/her IF Taweel was intended meaning or most obvious natural apparent literal meaning to smack one’s understanding was intended. (iv) To demonstrate even IF meaning of obviously insulting/abusive word is nominated by user to direct it to a civilized/acceptable meaning no one will accept it.

30.1 – Nominating Meanings OF Words In Insult Is Not End All Solution:

(i) No matter how I persist and insist insults I have directed toward Mufti Zameel ar-Rahman were in these dictionary meanings no Deobandi, nor anyone else will accept such an excuse. Why? There is unspoken rule and agreement: Nominating meanings of words in phrases where obvious understood meaning is insult, disrespect, abuse; than this nomination is not enough to remove insult, nor provides valid grounds to use such language. (ii) Any Deobandi commoner, or Mullah who deems this as acceptable should demonstrate his/her commitment by declaring to their Abba Ji, Deobandi Masjid’s Mullah, and his Deobandi teachers in which meaning he/she will be using words than unleash some of exotic words. Such as Harami, Kutta, Dalal, and constantly remind we believe because we have nominated these meanings hence these words are not insulting, or not as bad as you have understood. Act on this and you will get your just dues very quickly. (iii) I was saying: Nominating special meaning to words in phrases which in common parlance denote insult in an attempt to lead away from obvious insulting insinuations is not a norm nor tolerated practice in general daily dealings nor in Shar’ri legalism. Deobandis nominating a special meaning for phrase mar kar mitti mein milnay wala wala (one whom is to die and mix into dust) does nothing to change, remove obvious insult/disrespect and hence Taqwiyat ul-Iman’s statement and author will not warrant a tolerant Shar’ri ruling.

31.0 - Hypocrites And Disbelievers OF Old And Modern World Not Too Far Apart:

(i) “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.” [Ref: Q16:125] (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about Munafiqeen of old: “And those (hypocrites) who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, "We intended only the best." And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.” [Ref:9:107] Hypocrites of old erected a Masjid but the modern ones raised a Madrassa in Deoband with same evil objectives. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them (accordingly). Indeed, the hypocrites - it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.” [Ref: Q9:67] “And We send not the messengers except as bringers of good tidings and warners. And those who disbelieve dispute by falsehood to invalidate thereby the truth, and have taken My verses and that of which they are warned in ridicule.” [Ref: Q18:56] (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the believers to not to use words in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which can be misconstrued by insult him: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say unzurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disbelievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: Q2:104] Abusive words by default have greater prohibition because rule of Fiqh is IF lower is prohibited than anything greater than lowest degree is also prohibited. (iv) The Munafiqeen of old excused their mocking and insulting the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saying: “And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His messenger that you were mocking?" [Ref: Q9:65] Deobandis have invented new excuse to legitimize their OBVIOUS insults hurled toward the Messenger: It doesn’t mean that, dictionary has another meaning of this word. Halaling abuse by playing game of DICTIONARY, DICTIONARY. (v) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “And already were messengers ridiculed before you, but those who mocked them were enveloped by that which they used to ridicule.”  [Ref: Q6:10] True are words of my Lord. They mocked and insulted the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and the Kafireen made excuses but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enveloped them in their own insults. (vi) “Indeed, those who disbelieve will be addressed, "The hatred of Allah for you was greater than your hatred of yourselves when you were invited to faith, but you refused."  [Ref: Q40:10]“And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers." Even if satan was inviting them to the punishment of the blaze?” [Ref: Q31:21] “Indeed, Satan is an enemy to you; so take him as an enemy. He only invites his party to be among the companions of the Blaze.” [Ref: Q35:6]

Wama alayna il-lal balagh ul-mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Edited 15 جنوری by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

Bump.