The Modernists’ Denial of the Occurrence of Miracles

By Mohammad Yasir

The ‘Muslim’ modernists, who are deeply influenced by western philosophy, argue the impossibility of the occurrence of any miracle, all based on reason.

The reality is that they are in deep awe by philosophers such as David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, and regurgitate everything he said in a manner based on pseudo-reason.

The synopsis of Hume’s lengthy rambling against miracles in his ‘Enquiry concerning Human Understanding’ can be summed up like this: miracles cannot occur, despite how reliable the reports are, because *our experience* of *laws of nature* tells us otherwise, and a miracle is a violation of those laws.

The simple answer to this can be that no philosopher has examined every person’s experience who has stepped foot on this earth, so this generic claim, in itself, is problematic. And, then, to clearly reject copious reports of reliable people is even more problematic, especially when Hume accepts the notion that reliable people can report miracles albeit they will be rejected.

It’s incorrect for Hume to assert that “laws” of nature can never be violated. This insinuates that its violation is impossible which, in itself, contradicts the understanding of laws, because laws *are* broken and violated. Also, what logical law can explain the notion of everything coming into existence itself from nothing? It would not be a hyperbolical statement to say that “everything coming into existence itself from nothing” is the biggest miracle of the atheist to begin with. If some of them can concede such a reduction and absurdum, then I’m sure accepting the concept of miracle won’t be difficult.

In addition – although agnostics like Hume won’t accept this argument, it will stand against the modern “Muslims” nevertheless – is that who said these natural occurrences are ‘laws’ and not anything else? If you accept that Allāh is the Creator and ultimate Controller of everything, then can’t He, the Almighty, break these “laws”? Is He subjected to these “laws”? The Being, Who Initiated creation, can’t He do what He pleases?

And what is worse than this is that the modernist will misconstrue the several vivid revelatory evidences from Qur’ān & Hadīth, all in the name of reason and laws of nature.
What is more difficult to believe: Allāh created everything from nothing, or that He made certain changes in His creation? If you believe that Allāh created everything from nothing, then accepting miracles – especially if you claim to be a Muslim AND you have clear texts – shouldn’t be difficult at all.

One of the pivotal principles for us to remember, regarding a miracle, is that it *is* the action of Allāh which appears on the hand of a Prophet. It’s He, the Almighty, Who initiates the miracle, and not the creation. Understanding this will avert several objections.

Finally, the objection: how can we know which miracle is true and which is false as every religion claims miracles; hence, they will inevitably cancel each other out.

The short answer to this is that we have an epistemology which determines what is false and what is true. Islamic epistemology, in Hadīth for example, clearly demonstrates how rigorously scholars have filtered incorrect information from spurious information. Conversely, you will not find such a sophisticated system & methodology in any other religion – not even close to it.


By Mujlisul Ulama



Promoting itself to be in the limelight which is in total conflict with the spirit which should imbue a khaanqah, and which is in diametric contradiction of the attitude of Ikhfaa’ and Goomnaami (concealment and being unknown) which are among the fundamental constituents of Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah (Beautiful  moral character) for which Khaanqahs had been established by the Auliya, the institution in Azaadville, dubbing itself   ‘khaanqah akhtari’, advertises such of its activities which are in stark conflict with the Maqaasid (Objectives) of Tasawwuf which are supposed to be the profession of a khaanqah.  

Among the advertised activities which are in total negation of the life of a khaanqah, the following are cause for lament:


Appealing to the public to participate in its programmes. This is absolutely revolting for a khaanqah and for personnel who operates a khaanqah. It portrays total lack of ghairat of the shaikh operating the khaanqah which is nothing but a ‘khaanqah’ in name.

The Imaani ghairat (honour) of a genuine Shaikh of Tasawwuf does not tolerate fishing for mureeds. The Mashaaikh are extremely averse and critical of a Shaikh who fishes for mureeds. The motive for increasing the circle of mureeds is nafsaani. It is motivated by hubb-e-jah (love for name and fame) and hubb-e-maal (love for wealth).

It is this despicable love which has ruined all the shaikhs and their khaanqahs of this era. It is this evil of hubb-e-dunya which prevents them from proclaiming the Haqq and which constrains them to conceal the Haqq or to deceptively adorn it with the inspirations whispered to them by shaitaan and the nafs. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The love of this dunya is the root of every evil.”

Whilst the profession of the genuine Mashaaikh of genuine khaanqahs was always the effort to expel the love of the dunya from the hearts of the mureedeen, the emphasis today of the shaikhs and their khaanqahs exercises is the very opposite. There is no resemblance between these khaanqahs of today and the Khaanqahs of the true Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf.

Since the khaanqah akhtari has taken the liberty of misconstruing Allaamah Sha’raani’s statement pertaining to thikr majaalis, we emphasize that the sheikh of this khaanqah in particular, makes an indepth study of Allaamah Sha’raani’s kitaab, Tambeehul Mughtarreen, as well as his other Kutub on the subject of Tasawwuf. If he accepts this naseehat, studies the Kitaab with ikhlaas and with the niyyat of understanding the brazen deviation of his khaanqah operation, he shall not fail to discern the lamentable folly of his methodology which is the very antithesis of Tasawwuf and in total conflict and nugatory of the Maqsad of Tasawwuf and the purpose of a khaanqah.

For the edification of all the shaikhs or so-called shaikhs of today’s so-called khaanqahs, we mention here some naseehat of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) of the 10th Islamic century. In Tambeehul Mughtarreen, the venerable Allaamah states:

“My Ghairat-e-Imaani has constrained me to write such a kitaab in which I make known those signs of Akhlaaq-e-Muhammadi (the Moral attributes of excellence of our Nabi – Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which have been eliminated from the Ulama-e-Zaahir and Ulama-e-Baatin of this age. Therefore, this Kitaab is equally beneficial for every Faqeeh and Sufi. No one is independent of studying it.……..

What relationship does the haal (spiritual and moral condition of excellence and perfection) of these Mashaaikh (of former times) have with the mashaaikh (of this tenth century) who journey from Misr or Hijaaz or Shaam to Room and Iraq? They come requesting from the kings estate and status whereas they had ample means of sustainment in their homelands.

For them it was appropriate to have refused any gifts from a king even if he presents it of his own accord……

It is known that the very first step of the Mureed in Tareeqat (Tasawwuf) is to eliminate his wealth from his possession and to cast it in the ocean of despair.”

Commenting on the putrid state of the crank sufis, Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) says:

“Some of them link up with such people (i.e. crank shaikhs) who have not journeyed even a single step in Tareeqat. They swot of some words about fana and baqa and some shathiyaat (profane words of jaahil sufis) which have no support in either the Qur’aan or Hadith. Then they don a jubbah (cloak of the sufis) and an amaamah. Then they tour the lands of Room, etc. making a show of austerity and silence whilst expecting gifts from the rulers. Generally, a stipend is fixed for them (by the Sultans).

Thus, in this manner do they fill their bellies with haraam for they have acquired such wealth from the rulers by deception.”

Unfortunately, this is precisely the methodology of today’s shaikhs. To promote their khaanqahs. They tour the country and even foreign countries ostentatiously projecting their thikr majaalis to impress and rope in mureeds. Their public thikr majaalis and halqah thikr sessions are the chimera with which they deceive people. They have cronies who prowl around like wolves roping in mureeds for the sheikhs. Some of their moron khalifahs smoke, use profanities and even four-letter vituperations, and have no regard for even Jamaat Salaat, leave alone the Sunnah in their everyday life activities.

Some of these moron, vile khalifahs are even paedophiles and indulge in sodomy even inside the Musjid in the auspicious month of Ramadhaan, in I’tikaaf during the last Ten glorious days and nights. They seek out deceptive ways for communications with female ‘mureedahs’. Invariably they become entrapped in acts of moral turpitude and even zina with their ‘mureedahs’.

To enable themselves to maintain langar khaanahs (public kitchens), and to indulge in sumptuous feasting and merrymaking, the shaikhs of our time bootlick and flatter the wealthy fussaaq traders. They stay in their khaanqah business with their ostentatious public ‘thikr majaalis’ to advertise the idea of their ‘piety’ and having attained lofty spiritual ranks. All of this is to impress the wealthy class to ensure a regular flow of funds to sustain their wasteful and merrymaking khaanqah operations in the name of Tasawwuf.

In this manner they consume haraam, feed their mureeds and others whom they rope in with haraam thereby destroying their dunya and their Aakhirat. Whilst the Sunnah Tareeq of all the Auliya was austerity and extreme frugality, the sheikhs of today have destroyed themselves and others with their gluttonous indulgence in merrymaking, mass I’tikaafs, jalsahs, and deceptive halaqah thikr sessions which have no relationship with the Sunnah. Yet they have the naked audacity of tearing from its context a statement of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) to bolster their baatil and israaf.

Any brand of sufi’ism or tasawwuf which is in conflict with the Sunnah is Satanism. What resemblance does today’s khaanqah akhtari or khaanqah zakariyya or any other khaanqah have with the type of Khaanqah described by Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh)? There is no resemblance whatsoever. On the contrary, the khaanqahs of today are worldly institutions camouflaged with an extremely thin, see-through ‘deeni’ veneer. The reality of the deviation of these khaanqahs is not hidden from intelligent men of even the dunya. 

Addressing one jaahil sufi, such as the sufis of our age, Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“O my Brother! It is Waajib by Ijma’ to rectify Ibaadat in terms of the Zaahir of the Kitaab and Sunnah. A man who does not differentiate between haraam and makrooh is a jaahil. It is not at all permissible to follow a jaahil whether in the Zaahir or Baatin.”

This is the condition of the sheikhs of today’s khaanqahs. They argue away the haraam and makrooh ahkaam of the Shariah to accommodate their nafsaani desires and nafsaani objectives. That is precisely how they justify luring women from their homes to attend their majaalis and merrymaking functions. Truly, this sheikhs who lure females out of their homes in stark conflict with the Shariah’s prohibition are shayaateenul ins (human devils).

Continuing his naseehat, Hadhrat Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“The Salf-e-Saaliheen always stressed the imperative importance of being confined to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. They would emphasize abstention from Bid’ah, and acquit themselves with exceptional harshness in this matter. When Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar Bin Khattaab (Radhiyallahu anhu) contemplated doing something, and if someone would say that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not do this act in this manner nor did he instruct doing it, he (Hadhrat Umar) would then refrain from it.”

But the sheikhs of today’s khaanqahs become extremely annoyed and even offensive when their attention is drawn to the grossly un-Islamic and anti-Sunnah functions and activities which they have innovated. They seek out flimsy narrations and obscurities to bolster their bid’aat and wasteful functions. One such example is the narration of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) pertaining to thikr majaalis. They ignore the wealth of Naseehat proffered by Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) to sufis, sheikhs, quack shaikhs and bogus khaanqah operators. Not even in their wildest dreams are the present-day khaanqah personnel able to hallucinate the exceptional austerity and frugality which according to Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) are Waajib constituents of Tasawwuf.

The lifestyle of the today’s sheikhs drowned in opulence, in comparison to the advices of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh), is pure shaitaaniyat and nafsaaniyat. These sheikhs of the khaanqahs of our era do not realise that they are filling their bellies with haraam. Their attitudes are haraam. Their functions/jalsahs are haraam. Their thikr majaalis are bid’ah and haraam. They have not even smelt the fragrance of Tasawwuf, leave alone having set foot in this sacred Pathway. But they dig out a narration which they hallucinate to be in support of their bid’ah functions.

The dunya and its attractions have fossilized their brains and their hearts, hence they ignore all the advices of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) which are imperative for the cultivation of roohaaniyat and baseerat, and they gloat over a narration which tenders absolutely no support for their bid’ah halqah thikr sessions. Their khaanqah activities are underlined by worldly and nafsaani objectives, hence they require public thikr programmes, jalsahs, functions and the like to stay in the ‘khaanqah’ business which has become their source of livelihood, not only livelihood, but for amassing wealth. For adding shaitaani colour and adornment to their bid’ah and haraam functions for attracting and entrapping the ignorant and the unwary, they deem it necessary to lure the womenfolk out of their homes for participation in the shaitaaniyat they organize in the name of the Deen. And, they lure the womenfolk out despite the prohibition of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. The Hadith: “Woman is Aurah. When she emerges, shaitaan lies in ambush for her.”, has absolutely no meaning for these sheikhs who have ruined themselves and countless others whom they have ensnared into their tentacles.

Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) as well as other Mashaaikh have said that when Allah Ta’ala desires to humiliate someone, He embroils him in fitnah with women and amaarid (young lads). Both these evils are on the increase with khaanqah and madrasah personnel.

Proffering advice regarding observance of the Sunnah, Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) advises the sheikhs and the sufis: “O my Brother! Follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in your words and deeds. Do not contemplate doing any act as long as you have not ascertained if it complies with the Sunnah.”

It is incumbent for these sheikhs to ascertain whether their halqah-congregational thikr sessions, their merry making jalsah functions, their mass i’tikaafs, their luring women to attend their functions, etc. conform with the Sunnah or conflict with the Sunnah. For acertitude, they will find no support in the Qur’aan and Sunnah nor in the Tareeq of the Salafus Saaliheen for any of these acts of bid’ah and israaf which they have satanically innovated in this belated 14th century. 


On its website, khaanqah akhtari very ostentatiously advertises its bid’ah ‘ibaadat’ programmes. There is no conundrum underlying their motive of the advertisement. The motive is to attract the juhala to enter the circle of this khaanqah and become mureeds of the sheikh. The advert is most despicable. It has the aur’a of bootlicking and the objective of traders. It is a huge disservice for Tasawwuf and a misguidance for the laymen who will gain a lopsided, oblique understanding of the meaning of Tasawwuf.  

Khaanqah programmes are not meant for public consumption, not even Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) whom this khaanqah akhtari baselessly cites in support of its thikr activities, as well as the innumerable Auliya, never advertised their khaanqahs. They had no programmes to rope in mureeds. There is no support for khaanqah akhtari in Allaamah Sha’raani’s view regarding the Istihbaab of thikr majaalis. Insha-Allah, we shall revert to this topic further on in this Naseehat.

It is indeed lamentably surprising for a khaanqah to go on an advertising campaign to promote its wares, and in this case bid’ah wares which have no origin in the Sunnah. Advertising ‘thikr’ is motivated by riya and other unwholesome objectives such as   the desire to increase the circle of mureeds, receiving contributions for the sheikh’s projects presented in ‘deeni’ hues, etc. Proffering naseehat to sheikhs of the dunya, Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Do not be like those who acquire knowledge as the Ulama do, but then you act like the juhala…..The punishment of the Ulama is the death of their (spiritual) hearts.”

What is the meaning of the Maut of the heart? Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“The Maut of the heart occurs when the dunya is pursued with the Amal of the Aakhirat. By means of the Deen, he (the sheikh) seeks the taqarrub (proximity) of the people of the dunya.”

That is precisely why these khaanqahs of today are advertising themselves, bootlicking the public, luring women out of their homes to attend their bayaans and thikr majaalis, and to even enter into their circles as ‘mureedahs’. The motive for all their advertising is to gain the taqarrub of the people of the dunya. They should hang their heads in shame and scrutinize the innermost recesses of their hearts to understand the eternal damage and destruction they are causing to their dunya and Aakhirat. They are among the worst type of mudhilleen who misguide the juhala, leading them along the pathway to Jahannam.

Hadhrat Fudhail Bin Iyaadh (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “The best Ilm and Amal are those which are concealed from the people.” But these khaanqahs have made it their obligation to gain maximum publicity, hence they utilize the media for promoting themselves. It is unthinkable for people of Tasawwuf to descend to such despicable levels of nafsaaniyat.

Hadhrat Yusuf Bin Asbaat (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “Allah Ta’ala sent Wahi to one of His Nabis: ‘Instruct your people to conceal their A’maal.” 

By advertising himself and his khaanqah, the sheikh is in negation of one of the fundamentals of Tasawwuf, viz. Tark-e-Ikhtilaat (abandoning mingling with people). By advertising themselves, these khaanqah sheikhs of today are seeking the taqarrub of the wealthy. Offering naseehat to the khaanqah advertisers and promoters, Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Of the akhlaaq of the Salafus Saaliheen was to sever ties with any of their friends who maintained an association with the wealthy without a valid Shar’i motive, e.g. Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar. They acted in this manner on the basis of the Hadith which mentions that in Jahannam there is a valley called Muheeb which Allah Ta’ala has prepared for oppressors and the mudaahin Ulama (Ulama who resort to flattering the wealthy, concealing the Haqq and compromising the Haqq for gaining worldly benefits).”

The misguided so-called ‘sufis’ and ‘sheikhs’ of this era dwell in the self-deception of them being zaahids simply because they operate khaanqahs which have in reality no relationship with   genuine khaanqahs of the Auliya of former times. Shaitaan has deceived them into this disbelief. Hadhrat Bilaal Bin Sa’d (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “When a faqeer (buzrug/sheikh of tasawwuf) makes false claims of zuhd, then shaitaan dances around him mocking and jeering him.”

Commenting on the riya of advertising ibaadat, Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “Riya’ has overwhelmed the Ulama of this age. He makes the ibaadat of people conspicuous for them whilst their baatin is saturated with malice, envy and hatred.”

It is for this reason that despite proclaiming themselves as khaanqah operators and sheikhs of Tasawwuf, they are unable to tolerate valid criticism. Any naseehat regarding their villainous conduct is misconstrued and they and their juhala mureeds who lack the faintest idea of islaah-e-nafs react vindictively and vengefully. Giving naseehat to such hypocritical sheikhs, Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“O my Brother! Examine your nafs. Is it the same inward and outward or not? Recite Istighfaar in abundance. Know that he who advertises himself in conflict with his baatin is a munaafiq. On the Day of Qiyaamat, he will be cast into the pit of the munaafiqeen.”

Whereas the Mahshaaikh of Tasawwuf incumbently adopted seclusion and despised publicity, today’s claimants of Tasawwuf are the very opposite in all fields of Tasawwuf. Publicity, projecting and advertising themselves were extremely abhorrent to the Mashaaikh of the genuine Khaanqahs. Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (Rahmatullah alayh) said 13 centuries ago:

“Rare are the Ulama who are able to abstain from ujub (vanity/self-esteem), whose circle of dars is large.”

He would not allow more than three persons to sit in his dars. One day, due to oblibviousness (ghaflat) in this regard, he was overcome with fear when he suddenly noticed the largeness of the gathering. Overcome with fear, he left the gathering and commented: “Alas! I have become trapped in my ignorance. Wallaah! If Ameerul Mu’mineen Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had to see a person like me in such a gathering, he would immediately expel me and informed be of my disqualification.”

While teaching Hadith, if a cloud would pass overhead, he would become silent with fear, and would comment: “I fear that perhaps the cloud is laden with stones for raining on us.”

Once when Hadhrat Ta-oos (Rahmatullah alayh), was sitting in the Haram of Makkah imparting Hadith to a huge circle of people, Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) passed by. Observing this scene, he approached Hadhrat Ta-oos and whispered in his ear: “If this scene pleases you, then get up and walk away.” Hadhrat Ta-oos (Rahmatullah alayh) spontaneously rose and left. He had momentarily gazed into his heart and discerned the hidden thief of ujub to which Hadhrat Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) had alerted him, hence he ignored the huge crowd, immediately discontinued his dars without apologizing or explaining and departed. That was the demand of the Ikhlaas of an illustrious Sufi Shaikh of Tasawwuf.

Once when Hadhrat Ibraahim Bin Adham (Rahmatullah Alayh) passed by the halqah-e-dars of Hadhrat Bishr Haafi (Rahmatullah alayh), he detested the large circle of mureeds and students, and he said: “If this was the halqah of even a Sahaabi, he would have had the fear of ujub.” 

In the Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala says:

“Verily, those who conceal the clear injunctions of guidance which We have revealed after We have explained it for the people in the Kitaab, verily they are the ones whom Allah curses and those who curse (also) curse them.”

Commenting on this Aayat, Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “If this Aayat had not been in the Kitaab of Allah, I would never have narrated Hadith to you.”

The Mashaaikh of the Salafus Saaliheen as well as our Akaabireen who followed in the footsteps of the early Mashaaikh, were vehemently averse to publicity. But the sheikhs of today’s mock khaanqahs depart from even the Zaahiri dimension of Siraatul Mustaqeem to promote and advertise themselves, their khaanqahs and their bid’ah activities. They promote bid’ah as if it is the Sunnah, and this is a sign of Qiyaamah. In this regard, the Hadith states:

“Soon will there dawn an age when all the Aabideen (buzrugs such as today’s khaanqah sheikhs and khalifahs) will be jaahil, and all the Ulama will be fussaaq (such as the ulama-e-soo’ of our age.)”

Khaanqah akhtari and khaanqah zakariyya which are in the forefront of advertising and promoting themselves should resort to some sincere soul-searching in the mirror of the naseehat and lifestyle of the genuine Mashaaikh of the Salaasil which they claim to represent. We say without hesitation that they are a disgrace to the Akaabireen whom they claim to be following.

What is the affinity between Tasawwuf and publicity? From whence did they acquire the shaitaaniyat of advertising khaanqahs and ‘thikr’ activities? Personal Ibaadat and khaanqah activities are private affairs to be effected in seclusion. It is abhorrent and evil to advertise ibaadat as if it is carrion chickens advertised by SANHA, MJC and the other vile, corrupt agents of Iblees. We warn these khaanqas that they too are becoming entrapped in the tentacles of shaitaan to become his agents.

Among the outstanding characteristics of the Mashaaikh was khalwat (seclusion) and abhorrence for publicity. The desire for publicity is motivated by riya and other despicable worldly and nafsaani objectives. The ‘khaanqah’ which advertises its weekly and nightly programmes of thikr is not a true Khaanqah in the meaning of the Khaanqahs of Tasawwuf of the Auliya of former times and even of our Akaabireen. In fact, observing the absolutely lackadaisical attitude and conduct of mureeds, Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh) commenting about his own Khaanqah said: “This is not a khaanqah. It is a mehmaan khaanqah. (i.e. a place for guests/visitors).”

Once when Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh) went to Saharanpur, he went to meet Hadhrat Shaikh Zakariyya (Rahmatullah alayh). On this occasion, Hadhrat Shaikh was reclining on his bed with two or three khaadims at his bedside. When Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh) entered the room, Hadhrat Shaikh sat up. He was ma’zoor in his legs and unable to walk. He ordered his khaadims to leave the room. Then he beckoned to Hadhrat Masihullah to come near. When Hadhrat Masihullah was close to him, Hadhrat Zakariyya grabbed him in an embrace and cried profusely, saying: “Take care of the khaanqah. Today the khaanqahs are all desolate/destroyed (weeraan).” This writer heard this episode directly from Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh). Yes, today’s khaanqahs are mock ‘khaanqahs’ – a disgrace to Tasawwuf and the Akaabireen.

(3) Is the khaanqah a hotel?
The akhtari ‘khaanqah’ advertises with pride: “Many local and foreign brothers spend the entire Ramadaan at the Khaanqah…. Brothers are requested to bring their own bedding. All meals are provided. The Khaanqah also offers a laundry service weekly. Parking facilities for cars are available. Brothers that are arriving by air or by bus can also be picked up if arrangements are made prior to arrival.”

The only ‘laundry service’ a true Khaanqah offers is to purify the nafs from Akhlaaq-e-Razeelah (the evil, despicable attributes if the nafs). But this ‘khaanqah’ has been effectively converted into a type of holiday inn. People are coming for picnicking or camping to this holiday inn-khaanqah. What affinity is there between a khaanqah which has to cater for the acquisition of the Maqaasid of the Aakhirat, and all this merrymaking paraphernalia befitting only hotels and other worldly institutions?

Is there any condonation for these type of holiday-picnicking activities in any of the writings of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh), or in the writings of our Akaabireen or in the Ahaadith or Qur’aan?

The one and only activity of a khaanqah is Islaah of the Nafs. The obligation of the Shaikh who operates a khaanqah is to attend to the moral reformation of his mureeds; to cultivate zuhd in them; to weaken their worldly ties and to strengthen the bond with Allah Ta’ala. In a khaanqah the ta’leem and tarbiyat are divestment of the dunya. A khaanqah gives real meaning to Rasulullah’s description of the dunya, namely: “This dunya is jeefah (carrion).” But these khaanqahs of today are the very antithesis of the Objective for which Allah Ta’ala has sent the Ambiyaa (Alayhimus salaam). Did any Nabi ever operate a holiday inn type of ‘khaanqah’?

A khaanqah is not supposed to hanker after public funds and seeking donations to feed and house guests, and to ensure merrymaking and picnicking facilities for local and foreign brothers. It is evil to use these strategies for roping in people to become mureeds. Even their majaalis activities are designed for soothing the nafs of people, to flatter them and to gain worldly benefits from them.

The emphasis accorded to these bid’ah activities is not directed to the Masnoon acts of Ibaadat. A khaanqah has no ‘slots’ and no ‘programmes’. A khaanqah is supposed to be akin to Ghaar-e-Hirah. But under the exceptionally flimsy ‘khaanqah’ veneer, the holiday inn and worldly objectives are being pursued. Nowhere in Allaamah Sha’raani’s writings is there the slightest support for the activities which these mock ‘khaanqahs’ organize to lure men and women into their nafsaani tentacles.

The mass, mock i’tikaaf is the climax in their entertainment programme. Whereas the last ten days and nights of the Mubaarak Month of Ramadhaan are the most precious moments for total immersion in Ibaadat, the holiday-khaanqahs violate the sanctity of the Musjid and the auspicious Days and Nights with merrymaking, gluttony mock programmes which have neither origin nor sanction in the Sunnah.

All four fundamentals of Tasawwuf are insidiously discarded and despite being in a Musjid environment, the aur’a of the jeefah of the dunya preponderates. The style of operation of this holiday inn-khaanqah militates against these four fundamentals: 

• Qillat-e-Kalaam (Little/less talk) • Qillat-e-Ta’aam (Little/less food) • Qillat-e-Ikhtilaat (Little/less mingling/association with people) • Qillat-e-Manaam (Little/less sleep)

Every act advertised by khaanqah akhtari is nugatory of these fundamental requisites of Tasawwuf which khaanqahs are supposed to diligently and vigorously impart and cultivate.

The khaanqah has totally lost the direction. Instead of attending to the laundry of the nafs – of the Baatin, it has taken upon itself the profession of dhobis (washer  men) to wash the dirty clothes of people. The maudhoo of a khaanqah is to wash and purify the nafs, not the physical clothes.

A khaanqah has to develop the Rooh/Baatin with spiritual nourishment by adorning mureeds with Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah which is not possible without stringent adoption of the Sunnah and the Zaahiri Shariah.  The Bid’ah, khuraafaat (nonsensical activities), the merrymaking and picnicking bloat the nafs and emaciate the Rooh.  


Among the conglomeration of baatil organized by the holiday inn-khaanqah is its diabolical luring of women out of their homes in stark contradiction with the Shariah. Under ‘deeni’ cover, the women are exhorted to participate in the picnicking activities of the mock khaanqah. The so-called ‘separate ladies facilities’ are flagrant fisq and fujoor. It is an insidious attempt to bestow ‘deeni’ acceptability and respectability to an act which is abhorrent to Allah Ta’ala and His Rasool (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  

The ‘separate ladies facilities’ are a disingenuous attempt to camouflage the fisq and fujoor of the haraam act of luring women out of their homes. What does the sheikh sahib of this khaanqah say regarding the question of women coming to the Musjid for Salaat. We believe that hitherto he is still of the opinion that it is not permissible. If our understanding is correct, then we ask him: By what stretch of Imaani logic do you invite women to come out of their homes in droves to attend your merrymaking khaanqah programmes? Have you eliminated every vestige of Imaani ghairat and hayaa in the pursuit of achieving your nafsaani goals?

Since the akhtari khaanqah has taken the liberty of attempting to justify its bid’ah majaalis thikr on the basis of a statement of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah), it devolves on the sheikh of this khaanqah to discover what Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) says on the issue of women attending the Musjid and on female emergence on the whole. Furthermore, it will have a salutary effect on the hearts of the khaanqah people if they study with Ikhlaas the numerous and lofty requisites of a khaanqah explained by Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) in a number of his spiritually reinvigorating kutub. It is chicanery and deception to dig out from his kutub only the view pertaining to thikr majaalis. Sufis are not supposed to conduct themselves like humbug politicians who are bereft of any principles.

The sheikh, we are sure, will accept that despite women attending the Musjid during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah banned them. They cancelled this initial permissibility despite their age being Khairul Quroon (the Best of Ages) when the highest degree of Taqwa flourished. What satanism has now constrained the sheikh to lure women from their homes in this belated evil era of fitnah and fasaad to attend his holiday inn-khaanqah activities?

Only a veritable shaitaan will today claim that women attending these deceptive ‘deeni’ programmes and functions will emerge in the state of Tafilah (dressed like old hags, shabbily and smelly). They emerge from their homes decorated with their finery and well-perfumed, and deceiving the world with bright and sparkling abayas. So many of them simply slip in behind the driving wheel and drive to the haraam functions and programmes of the deviant sheikhs. These driving aunts are mal-oonat (on whom is Allah’s curse) according to the Hadith.

What has happened to the Aql and Imaan of a sheikh who exhorts women to emerge from their homes to attend his programmes when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had said: “Woman is (totally) aurah. When she emerges, shaitaan lies in ambush for her.” When the Qur’aan commands: “Remain (glued) inside your homes…”, what constrains a sheikh who   advertises himself as a sheikh of Tasawwuf to flagrantly violate this prohibition and insidiously call on women to attend his programmes? Indeed the sheikh has lost the path and is following in the footsteps of shaitaan.

Every argument which this sheikh, the liberal gumrah molvis and modernists fabricate for not only condoning female emergence, but for blatantly overriding the prohibitions of the Shariah by treacherously luring and exhorting women into the public domain has been adequately   answered and refuted by us in six booklets on the topic of women attending the Musjid. Anyone interested in these books, may write for copies. The books are also available on our website.

While the emphasis of the Qur’aan and Hadith is on concealment of women, the mock khaanqahs of today advocate display and self-expression for them. Wala houla wa la quwwata…..  This trend of promoting jahl and baatil by supposedly Deeni personnel will be on the increase with the approach of Qiyaamah as predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). “All the aabideen (buzrugs/ Sufis / sheikhs of khaanqahs) will be juhala, and all the ulama will be fussaaq.”

There is no support in the writings of Allaamah Sha’raani nor in any of the writings of the Salafus Saaliheen and our Akaabireen for the convoluted view of the khaanqah sheikh regarding his exhortation to women to abandon their homes for participating in his deviant, bid’ah, haraam ‘khaanqah’ programmes.


The only shred of ‘evidence’ the akhtari khaanqah has proffered in the attempt to sustain its bid’ah thikr programmes is a view attributed to Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh). This is a flapdoodle ‘proof’ for the bid’ah thikr gatherings which the khaanqahs of today organize.

While khaanqah akhtari seeks to extravasate daleel from the view expressed by Allaamah Sha’raani in the 10th century of Islam, we present the categorical view of Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was one of the most senior among the Sahaabah. His Fatwa precedes and pre-empts Allaamah Sha’raani’s view by six centuries and by the authority vested in him by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He was among the most senior Sahaabah. He was constantly in the company of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He was among the greatest Authorities of the Shariah.

When Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) was once informed of a thikr majlis taking place in the Musjid, he hastened to the Musjid and had the ‘khaanqah’ group of bid’atis physically expelled from the Musjid.

Once Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) was informed of a group of people engaging in a peculiar form of Thikr. The leader of the group instructed his companions to recite Laa-ilaha illaallaahu 100 times. Then in chorus the group recited. Then he instructed them to recite Subhaanallaah, then Allaahu Akbar, each 100 times. This they did in unison. Meanwhile they were counting the number with pebbles. Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), addressing them said:

“Use the pebbles to count your sins. I guarantee that none of your virtuous deeds will be destroyed (by counting your sins). Alas! O Ummah of Muhammad! (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). How swiftly have you fallen in ruin! The Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are still numerous in your presence. The garments of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have not become old and his unbroken utensils are still present. But you have opened the door of deviation.” (Musnad-e-Daarmi)

Allaamah Qaadhi Ibraahim narrates as follows:

“I am Abdullah Bin Mas’ood. I take oath by Him (Allah) besides whom there is no deity. Verily, you have produced a dark bid’ah or you have surpassed the Ashaab of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).”, i.e. in knowledge and practice” (Majaalisul Abraar)

Shaikhul Islam Ibn Daqeeq presents the riwaayat as follows: “I am Ibn Mas’ood. So, whoever knows me, knows who I am. Whoever does not know me, then know that I am Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood. Do you think that you are more guided than Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Ashaab? Verily, you have innovated a dark bid’ah, or you have acquired greater status in knowledge than the Ashaab of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” Ibn Mas’ood has refuted this act notwithstanding the probability of it coming within the scope of Thikr in general.”  (Ahkaamul Ahkaam)

Allaamah Muhammad Bin Muhammad Al-Khawaarzami narrates:

“Thikr bil Jahr is haraam since it has been authentically reported that Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) had expelled a group from the Musjid. They were reciting Tahleel and Durood loudly, and he commented: ‘I deem you to be nothing but mubtadieen (bid’atis).” (Shaami)

Although the sheikh of the akhtari khaanqah is well aware of this episode, he deems it appropriate to cast a blind eye and to sweep it under the carpet. In his grossly deviant understanding, the 10th century view has greater veracity than the unequivocal Fatwa of prohibition of this illustrious Sahaabi who had given practical effect to his Fatwa with physical expulsion from the Musjid of the gang of bid’atis who sought to override the Sunnah of the Sahaabah with their newly innovated thikr majlis.
Furthermore, the Qur’aan and the Fatwa of Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) explicitly proclaim such audible / loud thikr gatherings to be haraam. Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) ruled that it is haraam to raise the voice in the Musjid with thikr and even with Tilaawat of the Qur’aan.
Despite many Ahaadith mentioning the virtues of Thikrullaah, there is not a single episode of loud thikr gatherings in the Musjid organized by any Sahaabah. While the akhtari khaanqah seeks daleel in the 10th century, the real Daleel for a practice is in the first century in the lives of the Sahaabah and in the rulings of the Aimmah Mujtahideen.

We have, Alhamdulillah, discussed and explained the issue of Thikrullaah in great detail in our book, Thikrullah in the Mirror of the Sunnah. Whoever is interested, may write for a copy. It is also available on our website.

It should also be understood that the type of thikr mentioned by Allaamah Sha’raani was free from all the khuraafaat which khaanqah akhtari, khaanqah zakariyya and the other mock khaanqahs of today have innovated. In fact, these mock khaanqahs are merrymaking, picnicking institutions which are guilty of perpetrating flagrant fisq and fujoor with their penchant for women. They despicably lure women out of their homes to participate in public programmes. They should hang their heads in shame!

Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) did not promote these modern-day khaanqah programmes. Whoever makes a study of his kutub will know the lofty degree of austerity, Zuhd and Taqwa which he propagated. There is not a single one of his teachings which can be found in khaanqah akhtari which specializes in feasting, merrymaking, entertainment and bid’ah programmes involving even women.

The akhtari khaanqah has also quoted selectively from Raddul Muhtaar. In the very same paragraph, Shaami mentions that raising the voice with thikr is haraam. Thus, it appears:

“Raising the voice with thikr: The statement of the Author of Al-Bazaaziyah is perplexing (confusing) on this issue. Sometimes he says that it is haraam, and sometimes he says that it is permissible.

Here are two separate issues: One – Raf’us saut, i.e. raising the voice when making thikr. Two – Public thikr gatherings. On the first issue (audible thikr), the rulings are widely divergent, vacillating between Haraam and Mustahab. There are different Ahaadith on this issue, hence the conflicting rulings of the Fuqaha. But this is not our topic of discussion in this article which is intended to refute the thikr gatherings of the akhtari khaanqah.

There is valid basis in the Hadith for audible thikr, i.e. pure thikr in general without innovated paraphernalia such as the form (hayt-e-kathaaiyyah) which constrained Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) to brand the group of thaakireen as ‘bid’atis’ and expel them from the Musjid. However, there is no basis for the type of public thikr gatherings innovated by khaanqah akhtari, khaanqah zakariyya and the other mock khaanqahs of this age.

The ‘istihbaab’ mentioned by Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) in this context does not mean Sunnah. There is no basis in the Sunnah for such public gatherings even of the pure ones devoid of bid’ah accretions which Allaamah Sha’raani describes as ‘mustahab’.

An act of the Sunnah can be Mustahab in the technical meaning of the term given to it by the Fuqaha. Acts which are technically Mustahab are all Sunnah acts. There is a basis in the Sunnah for it. However, even such Sunnah acts have to be abandoned when bid’ah practices and forms have become attached. The principle of Tarkus Sunnah (abandoning Sunnah) when it is bedevilled with bid’ah, is well known. The molvis of the khaanqahs despite being aware of this principle, deliberately innovate bid’ah activities which have absolutely no basis in the Sunnah. That is precisely why khaanqah akhtari scrounges for proof in the 10th century, instead of in the 1st century, and in substantiation of its bid’ah thikr majaalis produces Allaamah Sha’raani’s view in which there is no condonation for the bid’ah types of thikr gatherings which lure women into the public domain, and which spawn merrymaking and feasting, etc.

Istihbaab’ in the context mentioned by Allaamah Sha’raani does not refer to technical Mustahab which is also Sunnah. The term regarding the thikr sessions mentioned by Allaamah Sha’raani has a literal meaning, which simply means good, preferable, meritorious. The statement: “The Ulema of former and latter times have agreed that Zikrullah in the Masjid in a gathering and other places is Mustahab….”, is not borne out by the Sunnah. The ‘Ulema of latter times” mentioned here do not include the Sahaabah nor the Ulama, Fuqaha and Aimmah Mujtahideen of the Salafus Saaliheen era (Khairul Quroon). There is simply no substantiation for claiming that the ‘Salaf’ in the context of Allaamah Sha’raani’s statement also includes the Ulama of Khairul Quroon. If it had, khaanqah akhtari would not have contented itself with a 10th century view.

There is not a single incident of the Sahaabah having engaged in the kind of public/Musjid thikr majlis programmes. On the contrary, the episode of the illustrious Sahaabi, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) expelling the new, bid’ah form of thikr majlis, unknown to the Sahaabah, is well known. The Sahaabah – all of them – were most vehement in their rejection of the slightest form of innovation in Ibaadat and in the Deen. It will serve the khaanqahs immense Deeni benefit if they would, instead of citing the belated, ambiguous view of the 10th century Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh), to reflect on the attitude and action of Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) to enable them to bring their errant khaanqahs in line with the Sunnah. However, since these bid’ati sheikhs do not discern any nafsaani glamour in the pure and simple practices of the Sunnah, they cling like leeches to bid’ah, and worse, they mislead the people into believing that their bid’ah is Sunnah, but for which they lack even a vestige of evidence.

The attempt to present bid’ah as Sunnah has also been predicted in the Hadith. Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrated to a group of people (Sahaabah as well as Taabieen):

“How will you be when you are engulfed by such a fitnah which will render the elderly senile and the young ones old? The people will adopt the fitnah (bid’ah) as if it is Sunnah. If anything from it (the bid’ah) is omitted, they will say that a Sunnat has been deleted.” The people asked: “When will that happen?” He answered:

When your Ulama (the Ulama-e-Haqq) have departed (from the dunya); when your qaaris are in abundance; when your Fuqaha are few; when your rulers are numerous; when your trustworthy ones are few; when the dunya will be pursued with the amal of the Aakhirah, and when Knowledge (of the Deen) will be acquired for purposes other than the Deen.”

What has been predicted in this Hadith as well as in many other narrations is what is transpiring today. The Madaaris, the khaanqahs and the Deeni institutions such as the Tabligh Jamaat, are all pursuing nafsaani and worldly objectives under the deception of a ‘deeni’ veneer.

It should be understood that the target of our criticism is not Raf’us saut bith Thikr (audible thikrullaah). That is an entirely different topic which we have explained in detail in our book, Thikrullaah In The Mirror Of The Sunnah. However, for total lack of Shar’i evidence to substantiate their bid’aat and khuraafaat, the khaanqah miscreants seek to pull wool over the eyes of the ignorant and unwary with the audible thikr red herring. Since there is some scope for bolstering the argument in this regard, they create the erroneous idea of us propagating the view of the total prohibition of audible thikr, and of the thikr practices of the genuine Auliya of former times. But this idea is baseless.

The thrust of our criticism is directed to the forms of merrymaking, bid’ah programmes which these lifeless khaanqahs bereft of roohaaniyat (spirituality) are advertising in the same way as the modernist, deviant zanaadaqah are advertising their many baatil and haraam functions of fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr, using the media for such haraam promotion. The life of a khaanqah is one of seclusion and privacy in which the spirit and ethos of Ghaar-e-Hira should be diffused. We advise the sheikhs of these modern ‘khaanqahs’ to study the kutub of the Auliya, e.g. Qasaul Auliya, Tadhkaratul Auliya, etc. Insha-Allah, they will gain considerable Islaahi advice and direction from such Mutaala-ah.

Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) was of the Shaafi’ Math-hab. Among the Shaafis there is some inclination to group forms of thikr. Thus, such thikr pertaining to Takbeer Tashreeq (The Eid Takbeers) is valid whereas it is bid’ah for the Ahnaaf, hence not permissible. Whereas this type of Thikr is valid for Shaafis and Hambalis even in the roads and in the bazaars on the occasion of Eid, it is not permissible for Hanafis. It is therefore, unbecoming and improper for the akhtari khaanqah to present the view of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh). Daleel should be presented from the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf.

For Hanafi consumption, it is not permissible to proffer the view of the Shaafi Fuqaha for congregational and loud Thikr inside the Musjid pertaining to the Takbeer on the Day of Eid. The muqallid will be acting perfidiously if he resorts to this line of baseless argument in his abortive attempt to substantiate a practice which according to our Math-hab is bid’ah.

Furthermore, the congregational forms of Thikr of the Shaafis and Hambalis are not a basis for the merrymaking programmes which these miscreant khaanqahs organize. In the thikr majaalis of the Shaafis, the haraam activities of luring women from their homes, the feasting and merrymaking do not feature. Also, the audible thikr practice of the Auliya of our Chishti Silsilah pertain to individual thikr, not thikr in group form. Thus the Rafu’us Saut permitted by the genuine Khaanqahs of our Silsilah, has absolutely no resemblance to the group bid’ah which these wayward khaanqahs of today are practising. These are two widely different practices.

For direction in Ibaadat, it is not permissible to search for guidance in practices which even the Auliyaa had introduced ages and centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Collective/congregational forms of thikr as practiced by the deviated khaanqahs did not constitute part of the Ibaadat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. Is the example of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inadequate for us? By the implication of the innovations the khaanqahs of today, the Sunnah is indeed insufficient and needs to be ‘adorned’ and ‘improved’, and this is precisely the meaning of bid’ah dhalaalah (deviant innovation) which leads to the Fire. We again stress that the objection is not against Thikrullaah. Objection against Thikrullah is kufr. The objection is against the bid’ah forms of thikr.

Describing the reprehensibility of the bid’ah kind of congregational forms of thikr in the Musaajid, Tafseer Ruhul Ma’aani states:

“You will see numerous from the people of your age screaming in dua, specially in the Jawaami’ (public Musjids where the masses at large attend). So much so that there prevails much noise and the ears are deafened. However, they do not know that they have combined two bid’ahs – raising the voice in dua and doing that in the Musjid.”

Regarding the khaanqah type collective forms of loud thikr which have degenerated into Bid’ah, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) offers the following advice: “In their letters, even men who have a high degree of sincerity mention their constancy in Thikr (i.e. the prescribed forms of Thikr). They request for dua. It seems that to them islaah of the nafs is insignificant. They regard Thikr (khaanqah-type Thikr) and shaghl to be the actual aim (maqsood) to be pursued. On the contrary, Islaah is the true objective. Thikr facilitates the achievement of Islaah of the Nafs. – Malfoothaat

Criticizing the degeneration of the khaanqahs of this era, Hakimul Ummat states: “Our Haji Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘A principle of the Mashaaikh of former times was the impartation of ta’leem to persons in accordance with their ability. For some, they devised domestic work, and on others they imposed some different type of activity. (It is not always these specific forms of Thikr). Now it has become the norm to instruct everyone with the Thikr of Ism-e-Zaat (Allaahu) 24,000 times, whether the poor soul survives or perishes. In fact, they do not even confine themselves to this form of Thikr. They dole out whatever comes to mind.”

“Even with regard to Dalaail-e-Khairaat, I draw the attention of my friends to the considerable time required to recite a lengthy manzil (chapter). Instead of this, the same amount of time should be spent rather reciting the Durood Shareef which the entire Ummah recites in Salaat. Furthermore, this Durood was prescribed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” – Malfoothaat

On the issue of the lifeless, innovated forms of congregational and loud thikr programmes of the miscreant khaanqahs of the age, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Sometimes when one suffers from spiritual ailments, e.g. ujub, takabbur, riya, etc., then abundance of athkaar and auraad (the type of non-Masnoon Thikr practices of the khaanqahs) worsens the diseases. The need is for mujaahadah (struggling against the nafs) so that one does not become the victim of show and pride after having rendered a good deed. Islaah (reformation) has priority over athkaar and auraad.

The Mutaqaddimeen Sufiya paid particular heed to moral reformation. However, nowadays people are not concerned with this essential requisite. Despite staying in the company of Mashaaikh and devoting time to Thikr and shaghl, moral reformation is not achieved. The spiritual diseases remain uncured. The mureed on seeing some dreams considers himself to be a wali. It should be well understood that the habit of sinning cannot co-exist with wilaayat (sainthood).

In every halqah (group) when customs become overwhelming, haqaaiq (truths and realties) are overshadowed. The Maqsood of Sulook (Tasawwuf) is not auraad and ashghaal. Although these acts facilitate the obtainal of the Maqsad, the objective is self-reformation. As long as moral reformation has not been achieved, the full efficacy of auraad and ashghaal will not be attained. In fact, sometimes, on account of ujub and kibr, these (khaanqah) auraad and ashghaal constitute dangers.” – Malfoothaat

“Alas! Nowadays people (i.e. the mashaaikh) are unaware of the Maqsood. Khilaafat (appointing a khalifah) no longer has a standard. What service (i.e. of guiding mureeds) can they render? In fact, they (these unqualified dumb khalifahs) come within the scope of the Hadith: “They are astray and they lead others astray.” On account of their fossilized minds, they lack discernment.”

“When Tasawwuf becomes corrupt, it is transformed into either insanity or hereticism (zindaqah). When a delicate object decomposes, its stench is intense.”

“The Mashaaikh generally instruct their mureeds to engage more in (certain forms of) Thikr than in tilaawat of the Qur’aan Majeed although tilaawat is superior. The reason for this is that in the initial stage the emphasis is on cultivating concentration. This is the special effect of Thikr.

The prescription of Thikr is in fact the preliminary step of tilaawat. When the ability of concentration has been acquired, the mureed will be able to recite the Qur’aan Majeed with perfection. The ultimate aim of Thikr is tilaawat of the Qur’aan Shareef. Once the necessary concentration has been developed, the mureed will engage more in tilaawat. What the unqualified spiritual guides do and teach, is beyond the scope of this discussion.”  – Malfoothaat

“The Mashaaikh of former times paid great attention to reformation of moral character. They underwent intense struggles and hardships to achieve this goal. Some worked for years in bathrooms; some spent years in the wilderness. During those times they did not pay much attention to (khaanqah-type) Thikr and shaghl. Their courage and resolve were great. They could bear the severest hardship. The Baarah Tasbeeh Thikr (the 12 prescribed tasbeehs – non-Sunnah) was considered to be very advanced while nowadays this is the elementary instruction issued to mureeds.”

The following is an extract from a lengthy Fatwa of Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) regarding the bid’ah hait (form) fabricated by the deviant so-called ‘sufis; who have no understanding of Tasawwuf and its objectives:

It is mentioned in Aalamgheeriyah (Fataawa Hindiyyah): ‘The practice which is done after Salaat is Makrooh because the juhhaal (ignoramuses) will believe it to be Sunnat or even Waajib. Every Mubah (permissible practice) which leads to this is Makrooh. So is it reported in Az-Zaahidi.’

Thus, it is bid’at to make Thikr in this manner despite Thikr per se of Kalimah Tayyibah with jahr being permissible. However, at this occasion this hai’t is not proven from Quroon-e-Thalaathah. On the contrary, this is an occasion of Ikhfa’, hence it is bid’at. Furthermore, in this practice there is the danger of corrupting the Aqeedah (belief) of the masses. And Allah knows best.” – End of Hadhrat Gangohi’s dissertation. (Tazkiratur Rasheed)

The actual purpose of these bid’ah thikr gatherings in the Musaajid nowadays, is roping in the ignoramuses to become mureeds. This is a contemptible disease of the khaanqah sheikhs of our era. 

The corruption is intense among the sheikhs and their khalifahs in our day. Loud collective Thikr programmes are promoted. The sheikh goes on tours campaigning for collective Thikr performances in the Musaajid, and canvassing for mureeds. Indeed they are astray and mislead others as the Hadith says. Commenting on the despicable campaigning of the ‘sufis’ of this age, Hakimul Ummat said:

“In this age there exists the disease of canvassing for mureeds. A mureed strives to rope in others to become the disciples of his sheikh.”

Commenting on the bid’ah forms of thikr gatherings in the Musaajid, Hadhrat Maulana Mahmudul Hasan Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh), whom the wayward, unqualified sheikhs of the mock khaanqahs love to quote, says in response to a question:

Question: There is a practice of reciting Durood Shareef jahran after Jumuah Namaaz and also in other neighbourhoods this practice is observed. Durood Shareef, Tasbeeh, Tahleel and Takbeer are recited in Ijtimaai (congregational) form, jahran (audibly). One Faadhil (Aalim) of Deoband explained to me that according to Shaami this practice is not bid’at. This person (the Deobandi Molvi) said by way of objection (i.e. objecting to the claim that it is bid’ah) that the Thikr which Naazim Saahib makes in Mazaahirul Uloom after Asr is a form and a time which he has himself fixed. Why is that not bid’ah? He also says that it has been the practice of the buzrugs of the recent past and now of their khulafa to gather their mureedeen in the Musjid to make Thikr-e-jali (audible Thikr). They instruct and exhort their mureedeen to do this. How is this?

(N.B  This is exactly the methodology of the venerable Mufti Radhaaul Haq Sahib’s argumentation. He has argued in similar style in support of loud collective Thikr in the Musaajid.)

Answering this question, Hadhrat Mufti Mahmudul Hasan Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Fataawa:

“Durood Shareef in both ways – sirran and jahran – is permissible and a medium of spiritual progress and divine proximity. Reciting it (Durood Shareef) on Friday is specifically emphasised. But, to recite it jahran in Ijtimaai’ form (loud collective form) is not substantiated by the Hadith and Fiqh. The Sahaabah Kiraam would congregate five times a day in the Musjid. Besides the Salaat times, they found abundant opportunities to congregate in both safar (journey) and hadhr (i.e. not on a journey). But, nowhere is it proven that it was their ma’mool (practice) to recite ijtimaa-an jahran (collectively and loudly).

Even if one recites infiraadan (alone), then too when reciting audibly, it is necessary to refrain from disturbing anyone. For example, someone may be engaging in performing Salaat or he may be sleeping. Furthermore, there should be no (worldly or nafsaani) motive for reciting audibly. The motive should also  not be riya and aggrandizement. The greatest ibaadat is unacceptable if the niyyat is corrupt…………

If in some place there is a practice to recite a fixed number at specific times, then that will be the amal of the Mashaaikh. It will not be Hujjat e-Shar’iyyah (Proof of the Shariah). Following it is not incumbent. However, since the Mashaaikh were followers of the Shariah, their practice should be appropriately interpreted to avoid it being in conflict with the Shariah and within the confines of bid’ah. The interpretation for this is:

A doctor prescribes a fixed amount of medicine to be taken at fixed times by a patient. This is not a command or ibaadat. It is a remedy based on the experience of the practitioner. Anyone who does not follow this, is not sinful by Allah Ta’ala. If he follows the guidance of the practitioner, he will, Insha’Allah, be cured. The special form of Thikr in which there is a fixed amount and a specific form of dharb (striking head movements) is of this category. With changing conditions (of mureedeen), the form of this Thikr too changes. Sometimes, this jahr and dharb are completely abandoned. The condition of specific forms of khatam is the same.” (Fataawa Mahmudiyyah, Vol.15)

There is no difference of opinion among our Akaabireen on the issue of specific forms of thikr innovated in the Musaajid being Bid’ah. The crank sheikhs of these khaanqahs have made their bid’ah forms of congregational thikr the Maqsood of Tasawwuf. Their understanding in this regard is absolutely corrupt and portrays their incompetence for operating khaanqahs. All of them are person’a non grata according to the Shariah. They are themselves astray and mislead others.

These khaanqah programmes advertised so ostensibly are a disingenuous scheme for promoting nafsaaniyat and worldly objectives – “for gaining the dunya with the amal of the Aakhirat” as predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Before ending this Naseehat, we urge all sincere seekers of the Haqq to study with an open mind and a heart desirous of gaining Allah’s Proximity, our book, THIKRULLAH IN THE MIRROR OF THE SUNNAH. This subject has been explained in detailed from every angle and all aspects have been elaborately presented.


The presentation of Allaamah Sha’raani’s statement as the basis for the bid’ah and baatil structure which the akhtari khaanqah has attempted to raise, is actually a red herring to divert attention from the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Since the khaanqah personnel lack in entirety in valid Shar’i Daleel, they seek refuge in a saying of the 10th century Shaafi’ Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh).

Even minus the many other Shar’i arguments which we have presented in this brief treatise, it will suffice to scale the issue of the khaanqah bid’ah on the view, statements and action of Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu). This very senior Sahaabi was so close to Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that the senior Sahaabi, Hadhrat Musa Ash’ari (Radhiyallahu anhu) and others thought that he (Ibn Mas’ood) was a member of Nabi’s household. It was his beloved task to carry the sandals and the wudhu jug of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). On the night when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) visited the abode of the Jinn to deliver the Deen to them, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) had been with our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

About Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu), Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:    

* “If I had to appoint a Khalifah without consulting anyone, I would certainly appoint over them (the people) Abdallah Ibn Mas’ood.”

* “Acquire the Qur’aan from four (Sahaabah): Ibn Umm Abd (i.e. Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood. Of the four, the first one mentioned is Ibn Mas’ood)…….”

* “Whatever Ibn Mas’ood narrates to you, acknowledge it (as the truth).”

* “I am pleased for my Ummah with that with which Ibn Umm Abd is pleased.”

While the khaanqah, bereft of valid Shar’i evidence for their innovated practices, have presented the red herring of Allaamah Sha’raani’s statement, we proffer, among the array of our Dalaa-il, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) who strides the loftiest stations of Ilm, Taqwa and Divine Proximity heavens above Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh). Whereas khaanqah akhtari has flaccidly cited the 10th Century statement which is not a Shar’i daleel, we present the Fatwa of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) who had practically implemented it by expelling the halqah thikr bid’atis from the Musjid.  

It should also be understood that Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) had expelled the group of halqah thikr bid’atis, not because they were engaging in Thikrullah. They were branded Bid’atis and expelled on account of the innovated form (hait) which they had fabricated and for which there was neither origin nor sanction in the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah.

As for Thikrullah, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “The Majaalis of Thikr are the Revivers of Ilm and for creating humility in the heart.”

Now, whatever he meant by ‘Majaalis of Thikr’, it never refers to halqah thikr in the Musjid which has no origin in the Sunnah. It is quite obvious his branding those who had   engaged in halqah thikr in the Musjid as ‘bid’atis’, and had them expelled, negates any suggestion of permissibility for akhtari khaanqah-type bid’ah thikr in the Musjid.

Some molvis bent on promoting their bid’ah even venture the extremely corrupt notion of the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) being decrepit, weak and unfit for daleel. These molvis are in fact influenced by shaitaan to disgorge such ghutha. The illustrious Fuqaha of Islam have accorded the Hadith authenticity and have utilized it as their mustadal for prohibiting bid’ah forms of thikr.

We have published a complete booklet on the issue of the authenticity of this Hadith. Those interested, may write for copies. It is also available on our website:


Once Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (Rahmatullah alayh) sought naseehat from Hadhrat Fudhail Bin Iyaadh (Rahmatullah alayh). He offered the following naseehat:

“O Assembly of Ulama! What advice should I give you? Once you were Lanterns for the people and the cities dazzled with your Light. But now you have become complete darkness. Before, you were Stars (of Guidance). By means of you (Ulama), people would find the Path (leading them out of the) darkness of ignorance. But now you yourselves have become lost in confusion.

You go to the doors of the rulers. You sit on their carpets. You consume their food, and you accept gifts from them. Then you sit in the Musjid narrating Ahaadith from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). By Allah! Ilm is not acquired for these acts.”

Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh), commenting on the above Naseehat, said: “It is narrated that on hearing this naseehat, Sufyaan Thauri lapsed into convulsive sobbing.”

We trust that the khaanqah molvis will ponder and derive lesson from this advice. It is of imperative importance for the khaanqah molvis to engage in an in-depth study of the kutub of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) and of Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) to gain a true understanding of Tasawwuf and its Maqaasid. These two Walis were Mujaddids in the sphere of Tasawwuf. The knowledge acquired from their kutub, if pursued with Ikhlaas, will enable the khalifahs to operate true khaanqahs for the Islaah of people. 

Presently, the khaanqah molvis are all astray and in conflict with both the Zaahiri and Baatini dimensions of the Shariah. Since they are vastly lacking in the understanding of Tasawwuf, they seek to remain in the khaanqah business with ostentatious bid’ah practices such as halqah thikr, public thikr, khatm-e-khwaajgaan, congregational recitation of Durood, congregational recitation of Yaaseen, jalsahs, mass i’tikaaf, feasting and merrymaking in general. These practices have no affinity with the Sunnah. Wird/ thikr practices introduced by the Auliya are spiritual remedies to be restricted to the privacy of the khaanqah, and not advertised and promoted as Sunnah or part of the Shariah or among the Objectives of Tasawwuf.

If they fail to set their houses in order, they will degenerate further and end up in the gutter and sewer rot as all the other bogus ‘sufi tariqas’ found today in West Africa, North Africa, India and the U.S. Men and women indulge in so-called dervish dancing and singing. The bid’ah, kufr and shirk are the fundamentals of these shaitaani ‘sufi’ tariqas. Understand well that any brand of tasawwuf which is in conflict with the Zaahiri Shariah is satanism. 

The khaanqahs in South Africa are slipping into the same cesspool of evil as the other bid’ati, shaitaani tariqas. So while they will be dubbing themselves as ‘akhtari’, ‘thanvi’, ‘chisti’, naqshabandi’, etc., they will in reality be Shaitaani.


Raf’ut Saut (raising the voice) is the fundamental and incumbent basis of all public thikr gatherings and programmes in the Musaajid innovated by the crank sheikhs of the mock khaanqahs. This fundamental requisite is in stark conflict with the Ijma’ (Consensus) of the Ummah. From the age of the Sahaabah there has always existed Ijma’ on the superiority of Thikr-e-Ikhfa, and on the Bid’ah of loud thikr. The confusion in this regard has developed centuries after the era of Khairul Quroon.

The following evidences will confirm the veracity of our claim and show that Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) despite his extremely lofty status, has erred in claiming consensus of the Salf and Khalf on thikr majaalis in the Musaajid. The only valid interpretation to sustain the claim of Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) is that by ‘thikr majaalis’ he was not referring to the heaving, swooning and deceptive displays of ecstacy of innovated thikr sessions of the sufis. He simply meant Muslims gathering in the Musaajid, sitting in Nafl I’tikaaf and individually engaging in their own thikr practices silently. Everyone recites silently on his own whether it be Tilaawat, Tahleel, Tasbeeh, Istighfaar, Dua, Nafl Salaat, etc. The Musaajid are the best abodes on earth, hence the imperative importance of Thikr Majaalis in the Musjid. But by Thikr Majaalis is never meant bid’ah practices which are in violation of the Shariah.

If it is argued that he did in fact refer to group form of audible thikr, then it will incumbently be set aside as an error. It is haraam to use the error of a senior even if he is the greatest authority of the age, to violate the Ijma’ of the Ummah. The view of the Aalim shall be set aside, not the established Law of the Shariah.     Confirming this fact, Allaamah Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Whoever adopts the obscure rarities of the Ulama, verily he has made his exit from Islam.”

The following is a summary of the Ijma’ on this issue – Ijma’ on the superiority of silent thikr, and Ijma’ on the bid’ah of loud thikr – the loudness which characterizes the ostentatious majaalis programmes of these deviated khaanqahs.

(1) “It is Makrooh to make dua during the month of Ramadhaan when making Khatam of the Qur’aan, as well as when a group makes khatam of the Qur’aan (i.e. at any other time). Faqeeh Abul Qaasim As-Sifaar (rahmatullah alayh) said: “If it was not for the fear that the people of this city would say: ‘He prevents us from dua’, then most assuredly, I would have prevented them from it.” (Al-Muheetul Burhaani)

The reference is to congregational dua after khatam of the Qur’aan Majeed has been made.

Al-Muheetul Burhaani is a voluminous kitaab (25 Volumes) occupying a very lofty pedestal in Hanafi Fiqh. It was compiled by the fifth century Imaam Burhaanuddeen Abil Ma-aali Mahmood (rahmatullah alayh). It is an elevated compilation consisting of the Masaa-il and their Dalaa-il of the Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf, Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayhim) and others.

While the Compiler is of the fifth Islamic century, the Masaa-il are those of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Fuqaha-e-Mutaqaddimeen of the first Islamic century. Nothing can supersede the Rulings of these Ulama belonging to the highest echelon of Fuqaha after the Sahaabah.

(2) “If the Muthakkir (the lecturer) on the mimbar recites Ma’thoor (Masnoon) duas, (audibly) and the people follow him in reciting these (Masnoon) duas, then if the purpose is to teach them (how to recite the duas), there is nothing wrong. However, if the purpose is not for the ta’leem of the people, then it is Makrooh, for verily, doing so is bid’ah.” (Al-Muheetul Burhaani)

The khutbah here does not refer to the Jumuah Khutbah. It refers to a lecture/bayaan.

(3) “Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayh) narrated in As-Siyarul Kabeer from Imaam Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) abhorred (regarded as Makrooh) raising the voice at the time of reciting the Qur’aan and at the time of the Janaazah.

Qais Ibn Ubaadah narrates that Ubaadah said: ‘Verily, the Ashaab of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) detested (regarded as Makrooh) raising the voice by the Janaa-iz and at the time of Thikr.’ In the Hadith of Hasan, instead of Thikr, the word, qiraa’t of the Qur’aan is used. There is no conflict between the two because, verily, the term Thikr includes dua, tasbeeh, tahleel, wa’z and qiraa’t of the Qur’aan. In fact, qiraa’t of the Qur’aan is the noblest of Athkaar. Allah Ta’ala says: ‘And, the Thikr of Allah is the Greatest.’” (Al-Muheetul Burhaani)

(4) “Verily, the Sunnah in duas is Ikhfa’”. (Al-Muheetul Burhaani)

(5) “If the meaning of raising the voice at the time of Thikr means dua, then most certainly is Makrooh, for verily, the Asal in duas is Ikhfa’, and also because in it (audibility) is riya (show/ostentation). Precisely for this is it Makrooh to raise the voice with tasbeeh and tahleel.”

And, if the meaning of the word Thikr (in this context) is wa’z (lecture), then it does not mean the raising of the voice of the waa-iz (lecturer). It will mean the raising of voices by the audience with tahleel, tasbeeh and durood when the lecturer mentions the name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Verily, it has been authentically narrated that it was reported to Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) that a group of people had gathered in the Musjid, and they were reciting tahleel and durood on Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while raising their voices. Then Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) went up to them and said: “We did not practise this during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). I deem you to be mubtadieen (innovators).’ He continued repeating this until he expelled them from the Musjid.”

And if the meaning of the word, Thikr (in this context) is reciting the Qur’aan, then verily, it is Makrooh to raise the voice with qiraa’t.” (Al-Muheetul Burhaani)

(6) “Jahr with Takbeer is known by (the Nass of) the Shariah which is in conflict with the primary principle viz. ‘Verily, the Asal in athkaar and ad-iyyah (duas) is Ikhfa’.

(7) “It is narrated from Ash-Shaikh Imaam Faqeeh Abi Ja’far (rahmatullah alayh): ‘I heard that verily our (i.e. the Ahnaaf) Mashaaikh regarded Takbeer Tashreeq (i.e. its recitation audibly) in the market-places bid’ah. And Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta’ala knows best.” (Al-Burhaanul Muheet)

(8) Allaamah Kaasaani (rahmatullah alayh) records in his Badaaius Sanaai’: “According to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), raising the voice with takbeer is bid’ah, for verily it is a Thikr, and the primary principle in athkaar is Ikhfa’ by virtue of Allah’s qaul: “Call unto your Rabb with humility and in silence”, and by virtue of the qaul of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “The best dua is the silent dua.”

Allaamah Alaauddeen Abu Bakr bin Mas’ood Kaasaani (rahmatullah alayh) was a Faqeeh of the fifth Islamic century.

(9) “Verily, jahr with takbeer is bid’ah.” (Hidaayah)

(10) “Ibn Humaam said: ‘The Asal in Athkaar is Ikhfa’ and jahr is bid’ah.” (Fathul Qadeer)

(11) “Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘Raising the voice with Thikr is bid’ah because it is in conflict with the qaul of Allah Ta’ala, viz., ‘Make the Thikr of your Rabb in your heart with humility and silence, and with a voice less than jahr.” (Al-Khulaasah)

(12) “The takbeer shall not be recited audibly. The reason for this being: “Verily, the Asal in Thikr is Ikhfa.’, on the basis of the qaul of Allah Ta’ala, viz., ‘Call unto your Rabb with humility and in silence’, and because of the qaul of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘The best Thikr is Thikr-e-Khafi.’………..Verily jahr is in conflict with the Asal (Principle of Imaam Abu Hanifah).” (Ghaayatul Bayaan)

(13) “Raising the voice with Thikr is haraam. Verily, it has been authentically reported that Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) heard that a group of people had gathered in the Musjid……. (the same narration of innovators and their expulsion).” (Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan)

(14) “Jahr with takbeer is bid’ah at all times except on occasions of exceptions (made by the Shariah). And Qaadhi Khaan has categorically declared jahr with takbeer to be Makrooh, and the Author of Al-Musaffa has concurred (with him).” (Al-Bahrur Raai-q)

(15) “Tabari said: ‘In it (the Hadith) is the Karaahat of raising the voice with Thikr and dua. And this is what the generality of the Sahaabah and Taabieen say.’” (Irshaadus Saari of Qustulaani)

(16) “And according to what has been reported by As-Suyuti, Ibn Majah and Nisaai’ have also narrated this. This Hadith indicates that it is Makrooh to raise the voice with Thikr. Now even if it is not haraam, then at least it will not be less than Makrooh.” (Sabaahatul Fikr)

(17) “Imaam Maalik and his Ashaab said that all these acts (of jahr and congregation in the Musjid) are Makrooh because the Salaf (Sahaabah and Taabieen) did not practise these acts. (These practices are also Makrooh) so that the avenue and means for bid’ah remains closed to ensure that there be no excess in the Deen, and abandonment of the clear Haqq. Verily, that which Imaam Maalik and his companions had feared has assumed reality in our time.” (Sabaahatul Fikr)

(18) “In this Hadith is the indication for the permissibility of jahr without doubt although Ikhfa’ is afdhal.”  –  Shaikh Dahlawi in Sharhul Mishkaat. (Sabaahatul Fikr)

(19) “There is no doubt in the fact that Sirr (silence) is superior (afdhal) to jahr…….’ The Mustahab according to us (the Ahnaaf) is silence in  Athkaar.”  –  An-Nihaayah (Sabaahatul Fikr)

(20) “The Hadith: “The best Thikr is Khafi (silent Thikr)”, indicates the afdhaliyyat of silent Thikr, and there is no dispute in this fact.” (Sabaahatul Fikr)

(21) “When the people recite takbeer (audibly) after Salaat, verily, it is Makrooh and bid’ah. When they recite takbeer (audibly) in the Musaajid of the Ribaat when there is no fear (of the enemy), then it is Makrooh.”  (Fataawa Hindiyyah)

(22) Qur’aanic recitation is Mustahab only if one person recites after another person has recited, not collectively as the Egyptians and Syrians have innovated. (One person should recite while the others should listen. Then another person should recite, and the others should listen.). Verily, Ibnudh Dhiyaa’ from our Ulama has explicitly said that raising the voice in the Musjid even with Thikr is haraam.” (Irshaadus Saari – Manaasik Mulla Ali Qaari)

(23) The aayat of the Qur’aan (in Surah A’raaf) is Nass for Ikhfa’ being Mustahab. (Jaami’ Li Ahkaamil Qur’aan of Qurtibi)

(24) Silent Dua is afdhal. Thikr-e-Khafi is afdhal. (Ma-aariful Qur’aan)

(25) Thikr jahr is permissible, but Thikr Khafi is Aula. (Kifaayatul Mufti)

(26) Ikhfa’ in Dua is preferable (Mustahab). (Al-Mabsoot)

(27) “It has been deducted on the basis of this aayat that Ikhfa’ in Thikr is afdhal. The Hadith narrated by Imaam Ahmad supports this. (Ruhul Ma-aani)


The plethora of differences which has created a quagmire in which many Ulama flounder, unable to arrive at a conclusion, exist among the Ulama who came many centuries after the age of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. The unequivocal and unanimous view of hurmat (prohibition) has cast the later Ulama into a quandary. In the endeavour to be extricated from the quagmire, a variety of interpretations has been produced. Most, if not all, of these interpretations only serve to complicate the quagmire.

Most of the interpretations are untenable, both rationally and irrationally (Aqlan wa Naqlan). Some interpretations, e.g. the assertion that Imaam Abu Hanifah’s principle refers to jahr-e-mufrit, are absolute drivel irrespective of who fabricated it.

There exists an incontrovertible consensus (Ijma’) on the afdhaliyyat (superiority) of Thikr-e-Khafi. Whoever has ventured a contrary opinion has failed to crack or dent the Consensus. The contrary opinion of the stragglers is pure opinion devoid of Shar’i substance.

All the Sufi Mashaaikh of the Four Silsilahs, despite their remedial and perculiar practices of jahr in their khaanqahs, are unanimous in upholding the afdhaliyyat of Jahr-e-Khafi.


It will be appropriate and very salubrious to apprize the khaanqahs of the view and fatwa of the Chief of all the Khaanqas of our Akaabir Chishti Mashaaikh. The following question was posed to Qutubul Aalam Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh):

Question: “In Ramadhaan Shareef, in the Musjid during Taraaweeh Namaaz after performing four raka’ts, if all the musallis collectively recite Tasbeeh and make Dua, and with the niyyat of proclaiming the glory, grandeur and glitter of Islam, they recite the Kalimah ‘Laa ilaha illallaah’ with jahr (loudly), will this be permissible or not?”

Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi responded:

“To make Thikr in this manner after the jalsah (sitting) during the Taraaweeh has not been narrated from the Sahaabah and Taabieen. Therefore, this ha’it (specific form) is bid’at. It is mentioned in Al-Waaqiaat: ‘Reciting Surah Faatihah after the Fardh Salaat on occasions of events of upheaval (such as calamity, fear and disaster, etc.) is Makrooh (Tahrimi) because it is Bid’at in view of the fact that it has not been narrated from the Sahaabah and Taabieen.’

It is also stated in Bahrur Raa-iq that it has been narrated from Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) that he heard a group of people had gathered in the Musjid and were reciting Lailaha illal laah and Durood on Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) audibly (jahran). Then he went to them and said: “During the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) we did not practise in this manner. I do not consider you except as mubtadieen (innovators).’ He continued saying so until he expelled them.”

On the basis of these two evidences, even though Thikr is mutlaqan jaa-iz, but to change a special form which had prevailed during Quroon-e-Thalaathah (the three noble eras of Islam) is bid’at. Hence, despite Kalimah Tayyibah being permissible jahran on its occasions of permissibility, but during the sitting of Taraaweeh this practice is not proven, hence to do so is bid’at. In addition the masses will think that this practice is Sunnat. A mubah (permissible practice) which the masses believe to be Sunnat is bid’at.

It is mentioned in Aalamgheeriyah (Fataawa Hindiyyah): ‘The practice which is done after Salaat is Makrooh because the juhhaal (ignoramuses) will believe it to be Sunnat or even Waajib. Every Mubah (permissible practice) which leads to this is Makrooh. So is it reported in Az-Zaahidi.’

Thus, it is bid’at to make Thikr in this manner despite Thikr per se of Kalimah Tayyibah with jahr being permissible. However, at this occasion this hai’t is not proven from Quroon-e-Thalaathah. On the contrary, this is an occasion of Ikhfa’, hence it is bid’at. Furthermore, in this practice there is the danger of corrupting the Aqeedah (belief) of the masses. And Allah knows best.”  –  End of Hadhrat Gangohi’s dissertation. (Tazkiratur Rasheed)

The Qur’aan Majeed says: “And, none takes lesson except the People of Intelligence.” From the aforementioned faqeehaanah (juridical and wise) exposition of Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh), every unbiased, intelligent seeker of the Haqq will observe the following salient aspects which clinches the whole dispute in which the venerable Mufti Sahib has become mired:

(a) Despite Hadhrat Gangohi being a Khaanqah Shaikh, who engaged in khafeef (very light) Thikr bil Jahr, he unequivocally branded the specific form of collective loud Thikr as being bid’at.

(b) The collective loud Thikr is bid’at because this practice did not exist in the initial three noble eras of Islam.

(c) The validity of the Abstention argument is confirmed by Hadhrat Gangohi, namely, this practice did not exist in the Sunnah, hence it is bid’ah.

(d) The authenticity of the narration of Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) is vindicated. Hadhrat Gangohi did not argue away the act of Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) with any of the defective interpretations which the votaries of bid’ah attribute to the said narration. On the contrary, he cited it from an authentic Kitaab of Fiqh, Bahrur Raa-iq, as evidence in refutation of bid’ah. Despite being a Chishti Shaikh practising Thikr bil Jahr in his Khaanqah, he upheld the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), and did not lamely argue it away in order to justify and vindicate the practices of the khaanqah. He was a Man of Ilm and Taqwa. Hadhrat Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) along with being an Aashiq and an Aarif Billaah, was a Faqeeh whose primary function was to guard the Shariah and the beliefs of the masses.

(e) When the masses see Ulama and Sulaha engaging in Thikr practices, they will naturally infer that such acts are Sunnat, and when they see the iltizaam with which these practices are observed by the Ulama, then they naturally and justifiably begin to believe that these acts of ‘ibaadat’ are Waajib.

(f) The principle of existence and non-existence of an ibaadat practice during Khairul Quroon is an important and a necessary determinant and criterion for all practices of Thikr which are executed in the full view of the masses. 

(g) Khaanqah practices should not be cited as a basis for justifying acts of Thikr which have no basis in the Sunnah.

(h) There is a stark difference in Thikr bil jahr conducted in the privacy of the khaanqah and in Thikr bil jahr collectively executed in public Musaajid frequented by the masses. While the former does not corrupt the beliefs of the masses nor develop into bid’ah in which the masses become entrapped, the latter undoubtedly corrupts the Aqeedah of the masses and develops into bid’ah.

(i) It is imperative that collective loud Thikr practices which were not in vogue during the era of the Noble Ages, not be advertised in public Musaajid. Any khaanqah practice should be confined to the four walls of the khaanqah or to private homes of the mureedeen who engage in such practices.



“After every Namaaz or after Fajr and Asr, all the Namaazis collectively and jahran (audibly) recite Lailaha illallaah. They furthermore, observe this practice with regularity whereas the Buzrugs did not order this practice for all and sundry. It is designed for only special persons. However, the juhala (ignoramuses) have made this practice universal (aam) and incumbent. It is for this reason that the Ulama have proclaimed this practice bid’ah. Now they accuse the Ulama of branding Thikrullah as bid’ah.

Although no one may be pleased with the Ulama (on account of their Amr Bil Ma’roof), the Muhaqqiq Sufiya are pleased with them. They appreciate the Ulama. Allaamah Sha’raani (rahmatullah alayh) who was a very great Muhaqqiq Sufi, said that the acts of the Sufiyah are extremely subtle (Daqeeq) which are beyond the comprehension of the masses. Hence, it is incumbent for the masses not to follow the Sufiyah in Uloom.

On the contrary, they should follow the Jamhoor Ulama because they (the Ulama) are the supervisors and administrators of the Shariah. In fact, the universe can remain in an orderly state only by following the Ulama………..These Ulama (of the Haqq) are the Guards who protect the Imaan of the masses. If they abandon their office, then the Sufi Sahib will have to abandon his cloister and execute this duty. Then all his tasawwuf, states and ecstasies will be forgotten.

The duty of Islaah-e-Khalq is Fardh Kifaayah. If the Molvies abandon this duty, then it will devolve on the Sufis. Therefore, O Sufi! You and your cloister will remain safe as long as this Guarding Jamaa’t (of Ulama-e-Haqq) subsists on earth. You sleep in comfort during the night. When your eyes open, you engage in namaaz and Thikr while the Ulama………….” End of Hadhrat Thaanvi’s exposition.

We hope and we make dua that this Naseehat of Hakeemul Ummat strikes a responsive chord in the hearts of those who are in search of the Truth – those who seek to emerge from the dark tunnel of confusion which the miscreant sheikhs of today’s commercial khaanqahs have created with their bid’ah thikr gatherings, feasting and merrymaking programmes.

“Upon us is to only deliver the Message” (Qur’aan)

Is Tariq Jameel a Scholar of the Deen

Is Tariq Jameel a Scholar of the Deen or a Secular and Liberal Thinker?

By Syed Khalid Jamie, A former Lecturer at Karachi University, Pakistan

(Comments of The Majlis in brackets)

The Shameless Speech of Tariq Jameel at the Supreme Court Conference

In supporting the venture of the liberal and secular chief justice, Saqib Nisar’s two offspring, Tariq Jameel has deviated from the Qur’aan, Sunnah and Islamic History and Culture. (Liberalism is kufr. It is a western kuffaar ideology renouncing the existence of The Creator and abrogating morality. It spawns immorality, fisq, fujoor and kufr.)

Tariq Jameel was made to sit in the 3rd row of the conference. In modern states an Aalim of the Deen is not thought worthy of being given a place in the first row. He will invariably be assigned to a third class status. An Aalim of the Deen will always be seated in the 3rd line. It is lamentable that Tariq Jameel is happy with this ‘honour’.

(A spineless bootlicker of the kuffaar has no conception of self-respect and honour, hence he derives elation   from the third class status which his secular masters assign to him. Even the secularists whom this Dajjaal praises and bootlicks, despise him. No one has a liking for a contemptible bootlicker. Tariq Jameel Dajjaal is the epitome of bootlicking.)

The Tablighi Jamaat should in future not invite Tariq Jameel to any gathering to deliver a talk. A molvi who is such a (shameless) supporter of liberalism does not deserve a place in the Musjid and Madrasah.

(The Tabligh Jamaat is set on the course of dhalaal –deviation – hence it woos a spineless jaahil, munaafiq of Tariq Dajjaal’s ilk. The Tabligh Jamaat is no longer concerned with the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala nor with the Maqsad for which the Jamaat was established. It measures it success in terms of numbers. The Tabligh Jamaat bootlicks the Tariq Dajjaal bootlicker. The motivation of the Jamaat for its despicable act of bootlicking an agent of Iblees, is to draw numbers to their ijtimas. They are stupidly concerned with numbers. They believe that Tariq Dajjaal by means of his deception is able to draw crowds, hence they have incorporated this miserable Ibleesi agent as a cog in their ‘tabligh’ programmes. The Tabligh Jamaat elders should hang their heads in shame. They have disgustingly betrayed the Deen and the Ummah.)

The foreign dignitaries and scholars in the conference clapped hands at every nonsensical comment of Tariq Jameel. They were astounded that “a molvi could be so liberal, secular and ‘enlightened’ like us!!!” (His zandaqah -heresy and blasphemy- soothed their kufr palates. Clapping hands is among the outstanding features of the mushrikeen who clap their hands while they dance around their idols of shirk.)

The talk of Tariq Jameel was not that of an Aalim of the Deen. (He is not an Aalim of the Deen. He is an agent of Iblees promoting Satanism.) It was in fact the talk of some puerile, ridiculous and vulgar boy. (The Tariq Jameel character is a dajjaal, a munaafiq agent of Iblees.) Even the chief justice and Imran Khan did not venture to speak such absurdities in regard to the question of population growth. (His brain has been deranged by the najaasat of shaitaan, hence disgorging stupid absurdities and bunkum has become his profession.)

Tariq Jameel ridiculed men and women of the rural areas. This miserable Jameel saheb does not even know the difference between the Islamic meaning of Ilm and the western terms of education, knowledge, and information. He is neither acquainted with the East nor with the West. Imaam Shaami (Rahmatullahi alaih) has written for Muftis that a person who is unaware of his times and the people of the times, such a person is in fact a jaahil(Tariq Jameel Dajjaal is worse than a jaahil. His jahl is compounded with kufr.)

It is regrettable that such characters are representing the Ummah. (He does not represent the Ummah. How is it possible for a Dajjaal to represent the Ummah? The illusion of being a representative has been created by the juhala of the Tabligh Jamaat who have granted him a pedestal. In so doing, they earn the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal.)

It is clearly discernible that Tariq Jameel is embarrassed at the history, education, and culture of Islam, whilst he is exceptionally and exceedingly influenced and enamoured by the west. (This attitude is the natural effect of bootlicking.)

Tariq Jameel does not even know that a welfare state was never established with the ritual cultures of the world. The welfare state of the west has been built on interest, bonds, tax, and capitalism.

Tariq Jameel has not read a single book on this subject. He salutes this welfare state of Imran Khan which is ‘progressing’ on the back of interest bearing loans from China, Saudi Arabia, America, and Malaysia. To designate a state operating on the basis of interest Madinah, is the heights shameless impudence. (Tariq Jameel Dajjaal is a notorious bootlicker of the West, of the Shiahs and of the people of wealth. He totally lacks in even the understanding of rudimentary requisites of a political state. In fact, he is a jaahil as far as even the rudimentary requisites of Imaan are concerned, hence he dwells in a state of compound kufr.)

Shahzad Rai sang at the conference with music in accompaniment and the height of Tariq Jameel’s Deeni honour and integrity was that he remained seated in his place. Was this what Islam waited for? (Music will be a primary trap of the Chief Dajjaal, hence the small dajjaals such as Tariq Jameel promote music. His sitting through the music session is thus not a conundrum nor is it surprising. It is entirely expected of a dajjaal.)

The method of family planning outlined by Tariq Jameel is that all women should be provided with secular education to enable them to become progressive. It is obvious that when a woman acquires secular education then she will take up employment and she will discard child-bearing. This is the same solution which the chief philosopher of liberalism, John Rawls proffered in his last book, The Law of Peoples. There is no difference between the ideology of Tariq Jameel and the philosopher of liberalism.

(The Tariq Dajjaal has no ideology. His jahl-e-muraqqab – compound ignorance – does not permit him to formulate an ideology, be it a kufr concept. What the jaahil excels in is bootlicking. He laps up the vomit disgorged by those whom he bootlicks, then presents his own stupidities in support of the ideologies of kufr.)

Rawls wrote that a woman should be given education and human rights, and masculinized.(This kufr has become the ‘ideology’ of Tariq Dajjaal).

The chief justice and Tariq Jameel should read the following books dealing with the topics of progress, TV, and development:

1. The Development Dictionary

2. The History of Development

3. The Culture of Cynicism

4. Unplanned Revolution

The world is awash with articles on the harms of dams. Dams are the cause of drought, epidemics, ecological pollution and malaria.

There is work on Small Scale Water Management. But our chief justice is promoting all over the country discarded technology. Germane to this he should read the book: Silence Reversed.

The chief justice knows nothing about dams, whilst Tariq Jameel has no inkling about the purport of Population Planning. The two of them should learn to say: “I do not know.”

Before projecting oneself as the guide of the Ummah, educate yourself in current affairs. After studying the above-mentioned books it is hoped that the two gentlemen are constrained to repent over their liberal views.  

N.B. A detailed response will be shortcoming.  (End of Sayed Khalid Jaami’s article)

Jinn, Azazil & Iblis

Narrated from Wahb: The Lord of the worlds created the fire of Sammun. From this Fire of Sammun He created the Jinn. “And the Jinn created We before of fire flaming” (Al-Hijr: 27). The first of the Jinn was named Marij and the Lord created second one to be his wife, and she was named Marija. They had a son and they called him Jinn. From them derived all the clans of the Jinn, including Iblis. And the Lord gave them the earth to dwell therein. And they lived and worshipped there for a long time. So much did they worship that the angels grew amazed, and said to the Lord of the Heavens and Earth;  “Oh our Lord, raise them up to heaven, so that we might learn from them and follow their good example.” So the Lord brought Iblis, then named Azazil, up to be among the angels and he lived with them in the first heaven. Others remained living on earth and, remained righteous, while a number of them became sinners and transgressed the Law, as did the children of Adam (Alayhis salaam) after them.

And the earth began to complain of them to the Lord. “Oh my Lord, have you created me that I should be peopled by disobedient-folk?.” The Lord answered “Oh earth, be patient, I shall send prophets among them to lead them back to the straight path.” Until that time no prophets had appeared among the Jinn. The Lord sent to them 800 prophets and they killed each one of the prophets. At last the Lord spoke to Azazil in the first heaven. And He said to him “Go. Azazil. Go and fight the unbelievers of your people living on earth.” Azazil obeyed and descended onto earth and fought the unbelievers, vanquishing them then the Lord sent down a fire from the skies and it consumed them, so not a trace remained. The only Jinn left alive were the believing and worshipping Jinn.

Again Azazil prayed so eagerly that he was raised up into the first heaven, or according to one narration, he worshipped so much in the first heaven that he was raised up through all the seven heavens and above them. He worshipped on the earth. He worshipped on the heavens, until Adam (Alayhis Salaam) was brought into existence. Then the Lord ordered all the angels to bow down before Adam (Alayhis Salaam).and all the angels obeyed except Iblis.

Narrated From Hassan Al-Basri (Rahimahullah): Iblis worshipped above the seven heavens for more than 70,000 years, until he was raised to the station of Ridwan which is very high station, Ridwan being the guardian of Paradise. Iblis was the guardian of Paradise for 1000 years. Once he read an inscription on the gates of paradise, and it read: “There is a servant among the most highly favoured servants of the Almighty Lord, and for a long time he will be obedient and serve his Lord well; there will come a day, however, on which he will oppose his Lord and disobey, and he will be driven from His gates and be cursed.” Iblis, who was then still called Azazil, read and wondered at this prediction. “How can that be.” He asked. “that one of the closest servants to the Lord should grow disobedient to the Lord of the Worlds and be driven from His Holy Nearness? Oh Lord!, he pleaded. Give me permission to curse that rebellious one, whoever he may be.” The Lord gave him permission, and Iblis showered curses upon that future sinner for one thousand years, knowing not that it was to be himself.

There is a conflict of opinion between people as to whether Iblis was of the Angels or of the Jinn. But it is written in the Holy Quran, “he was one of the Jinn and committed ungodliness against his Lord’s command.”

Because of his extreme virtue and the intensity of his prayers, The Lord raised him up into the heavens to live among the angels. When the Lord ordered them all to bow down and prostrate before Adam (Alayhis Salaam), he refused and his hidden evil was exposed.


By Mujlisul Ulama


In an opinion expressed by Mufti Mackoojee of the Halaal Research Committee of Mauritius, the view of permissibility of stunning with the consequence of halaal meat is propounded in stark contravention of the Shariah.

The Mufti says: “The Halaal Research Committee on the other hand, have (has) the moderation to accept stunning.” The ground for its wholehearted acceptance of the haraam and brutal method of stunning animals, is stated by the Mufti to be: “Because it simply conforms to the Qur-aan and Sunnah.”

The Mufti has displayed lamentable ignorance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is incredible for a Mufti to portray such gross jahaalat of the divine system of Thabah as to baselessly and falsely attribute a brazen lie  to the Shariah by claiming that the brutal kuffaar stunning method conforms to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. He has not presented a single nass from the Qur’aan, Ahaadith or from the statements of the Fuqaha and our Akaabir Ulama to substantiate the satanically baatil claim of the satanic method of stunning conforming to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Far, extremely far from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, according to Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh), stunning while being haraam, is tantamount to kufr if approved and believed to be a valid and a virtuous system. Relative to Mufti Mackoojee, he is guilty of kufr on the basis of his tahseen (approval) of this kuffaar shaitaani method. To the best of our knowledge, not even the vile halaal certificate cartel comprising of SANHA, MJC, NIHT, etc., has made tahseen of stunning. For the sake of perpetuating the flow of the boodle into their haraam coffers, the cartel has reluctantly  accepted the method without believing it to conform with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Thus, whilst these carrion halaalizers are committing blatant haraam, Mufti Mackoojee is guilty of blatant kufr by making tahseen of a kuffaar method which is in stark conflict with the method revealed to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by Allah Azza Wa Jal. We therefore urge the Mufti to retract his baatil  view, to renew his Imaan and to make Taubah for the kufr  which he has attempted to pass off as a Shar’i injunction – as a hukm ordered by the Shariah.

The poor mufti, despite claiming conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, is constrained to admit the possibility of the stunned  animals  perishing prior to Thabah, hence he says:  “Nonetheless, if the animal is found dead after stunning, then it is a carrion and a carcass and hence haraam. Slaughtering it will not render it halaal.”

What has constrained the mufti to concede the possibility of stunning leading to the death of the animal? No one should labour under the deception or misapprehension regarding this fact – namely, that innumerable animals perish after stunning. Expert slaughterers have confirmed it. Besides confirmation by inspections of a variety of people and organizations, the simple reality is that it is haraam according to the Shariah to inflict any kind of injury on the animal prior to Thabah. Denial of this fact is kufr – kufr which expels from the fold of Islam.

What was the shaitaaniyat or the nafsaaniyat which has influenced this mufti to shove a satanic, brutal kuffaar method into the Islamic system of  Thabah? He has attempted to shove into the Shariah the cruel bid’ah of stunning. After more than 14 centuries of the Shariah’s history, we believe that this is the first satanic attempt to grant Qur’aanic and Sunnah status to a method of Iblees. Hitherto, all those who have, for the sake of monetary gain, accepted stunned animals for Thabah, have done so reluctantly whilst accepting the method to be un-Islamic.

Not a single one of the many ibaaraat (texts from the kutub) cited by the Mufti has any relevance to stunning. Not a single iota of condonation percolates from the quoted texts which all refer to an injured animal being slaughtered whilst still alive. The texts nowhere legalize pre-slaughter infliction of injury, which is Haraam according to the Ijma’ of all the Fuqaha of all Math-habs. If an injured animal is found alive and slaughtered whilst alive, then its meat will be halaal. This is not the issue. The issue for which the mufti issued his convoluted baatil  ‘fatwa’ is stunning – the infliction of injury before slaughter, and this is practiced on a massive scale. It is integral to the kuffaar system of killing animals. It is a kaafir method on which the mufti has satanically attempted to bestow Qur’aanic and Sunnah status. In other words, it is a great act of thawaab to stun, main, injure and brutalize an animal before slaughtering it. This is a satanic view emerging from a brain jarred by shaitaani influence. Even a child will understand the villainy of this shaitaani brutality if shown to him.

The mufti should understand that simply lumping together Arabic texts which have no relevance to the subject matter is not adequate for securing the objective of deceiving even the ignorant and unwary masses. It is exceptionally naïve to believe that such stupid citation from the  kutub will pass the discernment of the Ulama. He has not displayed any erudition in the field of Shar’i Uloom with his nonsensical citations. We advise him to acquire expertise in Fiqh under qualified and superb supervision to enable him to understand and distinguish between valid citation and ghutha.

In the conclusion of his erroneous production of unrelated texts from the kutub, Mackoojee produces the text from Shaami.  Translating the text, he says:

“And the preferred view is that any (consumable) animal that is slaughtered when it is still alive, then it will be eaten (halaal). And Fatwa is on this view. (This is because the ayah above mentioned) “unless you have slaughtered it”, is mentioned without any attached conditions.”
There is no contention and no dispute regarding this mas’alah according to the Hanafi Math-hab. An injured animal will be halaal if slaughtered whilst it is still alive. There is, however, difference of opinion of other Math-habs as well as among the Hanafi Fuqaha on even this mas’alah. Nevertheless, the  Mukhtaar  view is on permissibility. But this has no relevance to the claim of permissibility of Satanism, namely, stunning is permissible, and furthermore, not only permissible, but an act of  thawaab in view of it allegedly conforming to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Under no circumstances is shaitaaniyat permissible. Leave alone it being Sunnah and supported by the Qur’aan. Something is drastically incongruent with the thinking process of Mackoojee.

The Qur’aanic aayat from which this lost mufti seeks to extravasate capital and support for his absolutely baatil view, is Aayat 145 of Surah’ An’aam. This Aayat very clearly states that the following types of animals will be haraam except if slaughtered whilst they are still alive:

⚫ Al-Munkhaniqah  – An animal which has been throttled to death

⚫ Al-Mauqoothah    – An animal beaten to death

⚫ Al-Mutaraddiyah  – An animal which dies after falling from a height

⚫ An-Nateehah – An animal gored to death by another animal

⚫ Ma-akals sabu’u’ – An Animal which died after being eaten by another animal.

After mentioning the hurmat of these animals which have died as a consequence of different forms of injuries, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Except that which you slaughter (make thabah)”. i.e. You find them with rooh (i.e. alive), then you make thabah of them.” 

This is the tafseer of the Aayat. It is ludicrous and moronic to claim on the basis of the permissibility of effecting thabah to an injured animal, that the infliction of the act of injury is  permissible, and not only permissible, but an act of merit and thawaab since it is hallucinated to be in conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

The Qur’aan states that the meat is halaal if an injured animal is slaughtered whilst it is alive. It does not say that the infliction of the injuries of throttling, beating the animal, casting the animal from a height, having the animal gored by another animal, and having an animal partly eaten by another animal is halaal. Infliction of pre-slaughter injury is haraam. But Mackoojee claims on the basis of this Aayat that the haraam act of stunning is a halaal, Sunnah act of merit. Wala houla….

In a piece of stupid advice to the cartel of carrion halaaizers, this mufti says:

“Halaal monitoring organizations should verify the stunning to be to norm to keep the animal alive at slaughtering time.”

In the pursuit for the boodle objective, he has proffered this silly advice. Millions of animals are daily slaughtered all over the world by the shaitaan’s system of killing. It is humanly impossible to supervise the system effectively and adequately. It is impossible – a total impossibility – to ascertain if each and every one of the  millions – tens of millions – of animals  is alive at the point of slaughter.

Stunning kills, but the followers of Iblees are in denial.

Stating his vote of no confidence in Allah’s system of Thabah, this wayward mufti alleges:

“For security of the slaughter man and to limit the uncontrolled damage after slaughtering, there is the need of stunning. Stunning is to electrically numb the chicken or to hurt the bull in the head so as to limit its struggle for its life during and after slaughtering.”

He must shame himself and get lost on some island or in some jungle to hide his shame for the kufr  with which this statement is impregnated. He has implied that Allah Ta’ala has given us an imperfect system of Thabah  which needs to be complemented with the ways of the kuffaar. He implies that, Nauthubillaah – Allah Ta’ala has missed out some vital elements from the Islamic system of Thabah, hence the  “uncontrolled damage after slaughtering”, i.e. damage in the wake of the pure Islamic system of slaughter. The mufti’s jahaalat  has blinded him to the kufr  which he has disgorged for halaalizing a system of killing described by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as: Shareetatush Shaitaan (the slaughter of the devil).

Shar’i Thabah is among the Shi-aar (Salient Features) of Islam. Any system at variance with this divine system is Shareetatush Shaitaan.

Then the luckless soul avers that stunning as practiced on bulls is merely some ‘hurt’ caused to “limit its struggle”.  Did Mackoojee ever see bulls being stunned? It is not a little ‘hurt’ caused to the bull. A metal bolt is savagely shot into the skull of the bull. It smashes the skull and the brains of the bull. The bull instantaneously drops in the pen, and will perish in minutes or even in seconds. There is absolutely no return to life for such brutalized bulls. The injury inflicted so barbarically assures the death of the bull. There is absolutely no recovery from this fatal injury, hence in terms of the other Math-habs as well as the Hanafi Math-hab, the meat will be haraam. In terms of the other Math-habs, the meat will be haraam since the animal is mortally injured and its death will be attributed to the injury, not to Thabah.  According to the Hanafi Math-hab, there is no certitude that the bulls are alive at the time of slaughter.

And, besides the issue of the bulls being alive or dead, of crucial importance is the hurmat of replacing the Islamic system of Thabah with Shareetatush Shaitaan. A healthy Imaan cannot tolerate consuming the product of Shareetatush Shaitaan.

The mufti has committed compound stupidity by elevating the devil’s system to Qur’aanic and Sunnah status. Such stupidity has constrained him to issue a ‘fatwa’ which is unadulterated kufr. The meat of all stunned animals is haraam. May Allah Ta’ala guide us all and keep us on Siraatul Mustaqeem  until the very end of life.

Deobandi Minhaj & the Book “Mafahim Yajib ‘an Tusahhah”

Al-Sayyid Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Alawi ibn Abbas ibn Abd al-Aziz al-Maliki (1947 – 2004) rahimahullah has authored a book “Mafahim Yajib ‘an Tusahhah”.

The subject of this book is to validate from Qur’an & Hadith some controversial issues that are practiced in certain Muslim communities (especially those with strong sufi affiliations) but have been very severely critized by the Salafi scholars of Saudi Arabia.

This book was translated into Urdu language and published as “Islah e Mafaheem”, by individuals having close relations with Hadhrat Sufi Mohammad Iqbal sahib. Hadhrat Sufi sahib’s initial baiyat was with Mawlana Khair Mohammad Jalandhuri (rahimahullah) and afterwards with Hadrat Sheikhul Hadith Mawlana Zakariya (rahimahullah). Both of them were outstanding ahle sunnah scholars of Deobandi heritage. However, after his migration to Madinah e Munawwara Hadhrat Sufi sahib (rahimahullah) became very close to Shaykh Alawi (rahimahullah).

Shaykh Alawi Maliki (rahimahullah) personally visited Pakistan and requested prominent contemporary scholars to write introduction to this urdu translation. Among them were Mawlana Abdul Qayoom Haqqani and Mawlana Malik Khandhlawi (rahimahullah).

The publication of Urdu translation in Pakistan raised an uproar in the Deobandi community. As a matter of fact the content of this book were totally against the Deobandi minhaj. Most of the Deobandi scholars did not agree with the author’s claim. Being crystal clear, for them it was not an issue to go into further discussions. However, for the common, Urdu reading, lay public, who could have been easily misled by this book articles were written to clearify the issue.

I just want to mention and list these articles here. They are:

1. Review of “Islahae Mafaheem”. By Mufti Abdus Sattar (rahimahullah), chief-mufti Khairul madaris, Multan, & president of the Islamic research Council.

Various prominent Deobandi scholars endorsed it.

2. Kitab Islahe Mafaheem Urdu par ik tehqiqi nazar. By Mufti Abdush-Shakoor Tirmidhi (rahimahullah), khalifa of Sheikhul Islam Mawlana Zafar Ahmad Usmani rahimahullah (author of Ala us sunan) and Hadhrat Mufti Mohammad Shafi rahimahullah (founder of Darul Uloom Karachi). Published in “Maqalat e Trimizi”, page 208-221

3. Book review in monthly Al-Balagh (Urdu), by Mufti Taqi Usmani sahib. Published in Tabseray (new edition).

4. Tehqiqi nazar, by Hadhrat Mawlana Ismail Badat sahib of Madinah e Munawwarah, khalifa of Hadhrat Sheikhul hadith Mawlana Zakariya sahib (rahimahullah). This is the most detailed one.

Knowing the details and fiqhi incorrectness of this book most of the introducers (who were alive) withdrew their recommendations. Some of the people who were involved in its publication repented and acknowledged their mistake in written and public speeches.

However, the book is still available in the market.

So be aware!

Taqlid and the Muḥaddithin

[By Najeeb Qasmi]

Taqlid existed from the beginning. In the early eras people followed whoever scholar they relied on and then the scholars instructed people to adhere to the maẓhab of a particular Imam for the reasons lengthily discussed so far.

After that with the disappearance of the different Fiqhi schools followed in the early centuries except the four, the majority of the Muslims including the circle of the Muḥaddithin unanimously agreed to follow them as you shall see in the following lines that every Muḥaddith followed any of the four Imams in their legal opinions. A list of such prominent Muḥaddithin is given below:

Imam al-Bukhari

Muḥammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari (d. 256  AH), the acclaimed Muḥaddith and compiler of the most authentic collection of Ḥadith known as Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhari was a follower of the Shafi’i school. He studied Fiqh of al-Shafi’i under his famous teacher al-Ḥumaydi. This is a historically proved fact attested by a number of reliable scholars. Shah Wali Allah of Delhi has also stated in his Al-Inṣaf: Al-Imam al-Bukhari followed the Shafi’i school in a good many number of issues though he disagreed with al-Shafi’i in some issues and followed his own judgments as a qualified mujtahid. 

Imam Muslim

An acclaimed authority in the science of Ḥadith and the author of Ṣaḥiḥ  Muslim, al-Imam Abu al-Ḥusayn al-Qushayri (d. 261AH) was a follower of the Shafi’i school as stated by a number of reliable scholars including the author of Kashf al-Ẓunun and Shah Wali Allah of Delhi in his Al-Inṣaf.

Imam Abu Dawud

Sulayman ibn Ash’ath al-Sjistani (d. 275), the author of Sunan Abi Dawud was a follower of the Ḥanbali school as stated by Ibn Khallikan in his history and Shah Wali Allah in his Al-Inṣaf. Moreover, Shah Abd al-’Aziz the Muḥaddith of Delhi writes in his Bistan al-Muḥaddithin: The scholars differ about the Fiqhi school Abu Dawud followed; some say he was a Shafi’i and others assert that he followed the Ḥanbali school and Allah knows the best.

Imam al-Tirmidhi

In his Al-Inṣaf, Shah Wali Allah of Delhi writes about Abu ‘Isa ibn Sawrah al-Tirmidhi (d. 269), the author of Jami’ al-Tirmidhi as follows: He was a follower of the Ḥanafi school and also adhered to the school of Imam Isḥaq ibn Rahawayh. However, some scholars state that he was a follower of the Shafi’i school.

Ibn Majah and al-Darimi

Imam Ibn Majah (d. 253) and Imam al-Darimi (d. 255) both were followers of the Ḥanbali school. It is also called that they adhered to the school of Imam Isḥaq ibn Rahawayh as mentioned by Shah Wali Allah in his Al-Inṣaf.

Imam al-Nasa’i

‘Abd al-Raḥman Aḥmad al-Nasa’i (d. 303), the author of Sunan al-Nasa’i adhered to the Shafi’i school as manifest from his book Al-Manasik. Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz writes in his Bistan al-Muḥaddithin as well as in Jami’ al-Uṣul: Al-Nasa’i was a follower of the Shafi’i school; he has compiled a book on the rituals of pilgrimage (manasik) (explaining things) according to the legal opinions (maẓhab) of Imam al-Shafi’i. Besides, Shah ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq, the Muḥaddith of Delhi also mentioned the same in his Sharḥ Sifr al-Sa’adah.

Al-Layth ibn Sa’d

Imam Layth (d. 174), one of the teachers of Imam al-Bukhari and a direct disciple of the Successors, was a follower of the Ḥanafi school as ‘Allamah al-Qasṭallani reported from Ibn Khallikan. The author of Al-Jawahir al-Muḍi’ah in the book and ‘Allamah ‘Ayni in his Sharḥ ‘Umdat al-Qari wrote: Al-Layth was a great Imam who unarguably enjoyed prominence, trustworthiness and nobility and was a follower of the school of law attributed to Imam Abu Ḥanifah as al-Qaḍi Khallikan said it and there is no one called Layth ibn Sa’d appearing in all the six Ḥadith compilations except him,  quote ended.

Imam Abu Yusuf

Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (d. 183 AH) the famous disciple of Imam Abu Ḥanifah was a follower of the Ḥanafi school. Ibn Khallikan writes that he followed Abu Ḥanifah in most of the issues though he had his own opinions concerning certain issues i.e. he disagreed (with the opinions of Abu Ḥanifah) in issues he formed his own opinions about by exercising Ijtihad for which he was enough qualified.

Imam Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan al-Shaybani

Imam Muḥammad (d. 187) the famous disciple of Imam Abu Ḥanifah and Imam Abu Yusuf also adhered to the Ḥanafi school. He followed Abu Ḥanifah in most of the issues though he had his own opinions concerning certain issues i.e. he disagreed (with the opinions of Abu Ḥanifah) in issues he was enough qualified to form his own opinions about them by exercising Ijtihad. The author of Kashf al-Ẓunun and Ibn Khallikan both have clearly mentioned that he was a follower of the Ḥanafi school.

Similarly, if we go through the biographies the prominent Muḥaddithin who lived after the fourth Islamic century, we will hardly find anyone who did not follow any of the prevalent schools of Fiqh. Ḥafiẓ al-Zayla’i, ‘Allamah ‘Ayni, al-Muḥaqqiq Ibn Humam, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari among other experts of the disciplines of Ḥadith and Fiqh followed the Ḥanafi school. The great scholar of Ḥadith ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr was a follower of the Maliki school of Fiqh while a number of leading authorities in Ḥadith the likes of Al-Nawawi, al-Baghawi, al-Khaṭṭabi, al-Dhahabi, al’Asqalani, al-Qasṭallani and al-Suyuṭi followed the Shafi’i school. Besides, a great number of Muḥaddithin including ‘Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah and Ḥafiẓ Ibn al Qayyim adhered to the Fiqhi school of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal.    

کرسمس اور اسلام

ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﯿﻢ

ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﻣﺜﻼ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﯽ ﺧﻮﺷﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﻧﺎ

ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ : ﺳﺎﺟﺪ ﺧﺎﻥ ﻧﻘﺸﺒﻨﺪﯼ

ﻧﻮﭦ : ﯾﮧ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻓﯿﺼﻞ ﺍٓﺑﺎﺩ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺟﻌﻠﯽ ﭘﯿﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﺍﺏ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺖ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮑﺎﻝ ﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮﺍﻣﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﮐﮯ ﺷﺎﯾﻊ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﺍﮨﻠﺴﻨﺖ ! ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯽ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﮏ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﺐ ﺗﮏ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺑﺎﻃﻞ ﻣﺬﮨﺐ ﮐﻮ ﭼﮭﻮﮌ ﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻧﮧ ﮐﺮﻟﯿﮟ ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﺭﺏ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ:

ﻟَﻘَﺪْ ﮐَﻔَﺮَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮْ ٓﺍ ﺍِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﮬُﻮَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴِﯿْﺢُ ﺍﺑْﻦُ ﻣَﺮْﯾَﻢَ ﻭَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴِﯿْﺢُ ﯾٰٓﺒَﻨِﯽْ ﺍِﺳْﺮَﺍٓﺋِﯿْﻞَ ﺍﻋْﺒُﺪُﻭْﺍٓ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﺭَﺑِِّﯽْ ﻭَ ﺭَﺑَّﮑُﻢْ ﺍِﻧَّﮧ ‘ ﻣَﻦْ ﯾُّﺸْﺮِﮎْ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﻓَﻘَﺪْ ﺣَﺮَّﻡَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻋَﻠَﯿْﮧِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻨَّۃَ ﻭَﻣَﺎْﻭٰﮦُ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺎﺭَ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻟِﻠﻈَّﺎِﻟﻤِﯿْﻦَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺍَﻧْﺼَﺎﺭٍﻟَﻘَﺪْ ﮐَﻔَﺮَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮﺍٓ ﺍِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠَّﮧَ ﺛَﺎﻟِﺚ ‘’ ﺛَﻼَﺛَۃ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻣِﻦْ ﺍِﻟٰﮧٍ ﻭَّﺍﺣِﺪ ‘’ ﻭَّ ﺍِﻥْ ﻟَّﻢْ ﯾَﻨْﺘَﮭُﻮْﺍ ﻋَﻤَّﺎ ﯾَﻘُﻮْﻟُﻮْﻥَ ﻟَﯿَﻤَﺴَّﻦَّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﮐَﻔَﺮُﻭْﺍ ﻣِﻨْﮭُﻢْ ﻋَﺬَﺍﺏ ‘’ ﺍَﻟِﯿْﻢ ‘’ ۔
‏( ﺳﻮﺭۃ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺋﺪﮦ : ﺍٓﯾﺖ ۷۲۔۷۳ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﮨﯽ ﻣﺴﯿﺢ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﯾﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺑﯿﭩﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﻣﺴﯿﺢ ﻧﮯ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﮮ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺟﻮ ﻣﯿﺮﺍ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺭﺏ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﺍ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﻼﺷﺒﮧ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﺷﺮﯾﮏ ﭨﮭﺮﺍﯾﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻨﺖ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮐﺮﺩﯼ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﮭﻨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﭨﮭﮑﺎﻧﮧ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻇﺎﻟﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻣﺪﺩﮔﺎﺭ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﯿﻦ ﺧﺪﺍﻭٔﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺗﻮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻧﮧ ﺍٓﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ‏( ﻣﺮﯾﮟ ﮔﮯ ‏) ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺩﺭﺩﻧﺎﮎ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﮯ ﮔﺎ۔

ﺍﻥ ﺍٓﯾﺎﺕ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﮐﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﭘﺎﮎ ﻧﮯ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺩﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻣﺸﺮﮐﺎﻧﮧ ﻋﻘﺎﺋﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮﺑﮧ ﻧﮧ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﭨﮭﮑﺎﻧﮧ ﺟﮩﻨﻢ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺍﻭﺭ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯾﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ :

ﯾٰﺎَﯾُّﮭَﺎ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﺍَﻣَﻨُﻮْﺍ ﻟَﺎ ﺗَﺘَّﺨِﺬُﻭْﺍ ﺍﻟْﯿَﮭُﻮْﺩَ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺼَﺎﺭٰﯼ ﺍٓﻭْﻟِﯿَﺎٓﺉً ﺑَﻌْﻀُﮭُﻢْ ﺍَﻭْﻟِﯿَﺎٓﺉَ ﺑَﻌْﺾٍ ﻭَّ ﻣَﻦْ ﯾَّﺘَﻮَﻟَّﮭُﻢْ ﻣِﻨْﮑُﻢْ ﻓَﺎِﻧَّﮧ ‘ ﻣِﻨْﮭُﻢْ ﺍِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠَّﮧَ ﻻَ ﯾَﮭْﺪِﯼ ﺍﻟْﻘَﻮْﻡَ ﺍﻟﻈَّﺎﻟِﻤِﯿْﻦَ۔ ‏( ﺳﻮﺭۃ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺋﺪﮦ : ﺍٓﯾﺖ ۵۱ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﺍﮮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮ ! ﯾﮩﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﻮ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻧﮧ ﺑﻨﺎﻧﺎ ،ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺑﻌﺾ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﭘﮭﺮﺍ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻧﮩﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻇﺎﻟﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮨﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ۔
ﺍﺱ ﺍٓﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺩﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯾﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﮨﺮ ﮔﺰ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﮯ ﭘﯿﻨﮕﮯ ﻧﮧ ﺑﮍﮬﺎﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﮮ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍٓﭘﺲ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻣﻤﺎﻧﻌﺖ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻢ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻧﮧ ﺍٓﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﭘﮭﺮ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻮ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻧﮩﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮ۔ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻗﺎﺿﯽ ﻋﯿﺎﺽ ﻣﺎﻟﮑﯽ ﺭﺣﻤۃ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

’’ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﯾﮑﻔﺮ ﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﻭﺍﻟﯿﮭﻮﺩ ﻭﮐﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﺍﻭ ﻭﻗﻒ ﻓﯽ ﺗﮑﻔﯿﺮﮬﻢ ﺍﻭ ﺷﮏ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﯽ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﻻﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻒ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﻤﺎ ﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﻔﺮﮬﻢ ﻓﻤﻦ ﻭﻗﻒ ﻓﯽ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﻓﻘﺪ ﮐﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﮏ ﻓﯿﮧ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﮑﺬﯾﺐ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﮏ ﻓﯿﮧ ﻭﻻ ﯾﻘﻊ ﺍﻻ ﻣﻦ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ۔ ‏( ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ : ﺝ۲ : ﺹ ۱۷۰۔ﺣﻘﺎﻧﯿﮧ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯽ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﯾﺎ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﻮ ﺟﻮ ﺩﯾﻦ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺪﺍ ﮨﻮﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﻧﮧ ﮐﮩﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮐﮩﻨﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮﻗﻒ ﮐﺮﮮ ﯾﺎ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺮﮮ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻗﺎﺿﯽ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﻧﮯ ﺍ ﺳﮑﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﯾﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺷﺮﻋﯿﮧ ﻭ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻣﺖ ﺍﻥ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺘﻔﻖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮﻗﻒ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﻧﺺ ﻭ ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺗﮑﺬﯾﺐ ﮐﺮﺗﺎﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﮏ ﺭﮐﮭﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯽ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﻧﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮨﮯ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﻓﺴﻮﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﭘﮍﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮩﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ،ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ،ﺍﺧﻮﺕ ،ﺑﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﭼﺎﺭﮦ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻣﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺧﻮﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺍٓﮌﻣﯿﮟ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﭘﯿﺎﺭ ﻭﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﯾﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺗﻌﻠﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺭﮐﮭﻨﺎ ﭼﺎﮨﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻣﺬﺍﮨﺐ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮔﻠﺪﺳﺘﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺍﺧﺘﯿﺎﺭ ﮐﺮﻟﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻣﻦ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺎﻡ ﭘﺮ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭ ’’ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ‘‘ ﮐﻮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﯿﺴﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻨﻢ ﺩﻥ ﻣﺎﻥ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮍﮮ ﺩﮬﻮﻡ ﺩﮬﺎﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﻮ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻣﻞ ﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻔﺮ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ۔

ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﺧﺪﺍ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ

ﺍﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺍﻻﺻﺒﮭﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﺱ ﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﺎﻋﯿﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺨﺎﺭﯼ : ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﻣﺮﯾﻢ ﻧﺎ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺑﻦ ﯾﺰﯾﺪ ﺳﻤﻊ ﺳﻠﯿﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﺯﯾﻨﺐ ﻭ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ ﺳﻤﻊ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﺳﻠﻤۃ ﺳﻤﻊ ﺍﺑﺎﮦ ﺳﻤﻊ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﻋﻨﮧ ﺍﻧﮧ ﻗﺎﻟـ : ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺒﻮﺍ ﺍﻋﺪﺍٓﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﯿﮭﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﻓﯽ ﻋﯿﺪﮬﻢ ﯾﻮﻡ ﺟﻤﻌﮭﻢ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﯾﻨﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﯿﮩﻢ ﻓﺎﺧﺸﯽ ﺍﻥ ﯾﺼﯿﺒﮑﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺑﻄﺎﻧﺘﮭﻢ ﺗﺨﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﺨﻠﻘﮭﻢ۔
‏( ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﻻﯾﻤﺎﻥ : ﺝ۷ : ﺹ ۴۳۔ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﮑﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﯿﮧ ﺑﯿﺮﻭﺕ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺧﺒﺮ ﺩﯼ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺳﺤﻖ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺣﻤﺪﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻌﯿﻞ ﺑﺨﺎﺭﯼ ﻧﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﯾﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻧﮑﻮ ﺧﺒﺮ ﺩﯼ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺑﻦ ﯾﺰﯾﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺳﻨﺎﺳﻠﯿﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺯﯾﻨﺐ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺎﺭﺙ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺳﻠﻤﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺳﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﺳﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍٓﭖ ؓ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺩﺷﻤﻨﻮﮞ ﯾﮭﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺑﭽﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺍﮐﮭﭩﮯ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻧﺎﺭﺍﺿﯽ ﺍﺗﺮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮈﺭﺗﺎ ﮨﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﮐﮩﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺗﻤﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮧ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﯿﮟ ﻣﺖ ﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﮐﺮﻭ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺎﺩﺗﯿﮟ ﺳﯿﮑﮫ ﺟﺎﻭ ﮔﮯ ‏( ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﺎﺛﺮ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﻭﮔﮯ ‏) ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ :

ﺍﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻓﯽ ﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﮑﻮﻓﯽ ﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻔﺎﻥ ﻧﺎ ﺯﯾﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﺎﺏ ﻧﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻘﺒﮧ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﯽ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺑﻦ ﺩﯾﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﮭﺬﻟﯽ ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺍﯾﺎﮐﻢ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨۃ ﺍﻻﻋﺎﺟﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻥ ﺗﺪﺧﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﯿﮩﻢ ﻓﯽ ﺑﯿﻌﮭﻢ ﯾﻮﻡ ﻋﯿﺪﮬﻢ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﯾﻨﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﯿﮩﻢ۔
‏( ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﻻﯾﻤﺎﻥ : ﺝ۷ : ﺹ۴۳ ‏)

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺍٓﭖ ﮐﻮ ﺑﭽﺎﻭٔ ﺍﮨﻞ ﻋﺠﻢ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺵ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﻊ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﺧﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻋﯿﺪ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺎﻡ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﺍﮨﻠﺴﻨﺖ ! ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﺗﻮ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﺩﺷﻤﻦ ﮐﮩﮧ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻤﻊ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﻊ ﮐﺮﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭ ﻧﺎﺭﺍﺿﮕﯽ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻣﮕﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺟﻌﻠﯽ ﺻﻮﻓﯽ ﮐﮩﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺧﯿﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺮﮐﺖ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺩﻥ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺍﺏ ﮨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﯿﮟ ﯾﺎ ﺣﻀﺮ ﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﮐﯽ ؟

ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺎﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ

ﻣﻼ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻗﺎﺭﯼ ﺣﻨﻔﯽ ﺭﺣﻤۃ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ : ؎

ﻓﯽ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺮﯼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﯼ ﯾﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﺷﯿﺌﺎ ﻭ ﻟﻢ ﯾﮑﻦ ﯾﺸﺘﺮﯾﮧ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﺍﺭﺍﺩ ﺑﮧ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻭﺯ ،ﮐﻔﺮ ﺍﯼ ﻻﻧﮧ ﻋﻈﻢ ﻋﯿﺪ ﺍﻟﮑﻔﺮۃ۔ )) ﺷﺮﺡ ﻓﻘﮧ ﺍﻻﮐﺒﺮ : ﺹ ۴۹۹ ۔ﺑﯿﺮﻭﺕ ‏)

ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻧﮯ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ‏( ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ‏) ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﭼﯿﺰ ﺧﺮﯾﺪﯼ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺧﺮﯾﺪﺗﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ،ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺭﺍﺩﮦ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﺀ ﺳﮯ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﺗﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ،ﺍﺱ ﻟﺌﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍ ﺱ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﯽ۔

ﻣﺰﯾﺪ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

ﻟﻮﺍﻥ ﺭﺟﻼ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺧﻤﺴﯿﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺟﺎﺀ ﯾﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﻓﺎﮬﺪﯼ ﺍﻟﯽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﮐﯿﻦ ﯾﺮﯾﺪ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﺍﻟﯿﻮﻡ ﻓﻘﺪ ﮐﻔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﻭ ﺣﺒﻂ ﻋﻤﻠﮧ ﺧﻤﺴﯿﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ۔
‏( ﺷﺮﺡ ﻓﻘﮧ ﺍﻻﮐﺒﺮ : ﺹ ۵۰۰ ‏)

ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻧﮯ ﭘﭽﺎﺱ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺗﮏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﮐﯽ ﭘﮭﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻥ ﺍٓﮔﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻣﺸﺮﮎ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﮨﺪﯾﮧ ﮐﺮﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻧﯿﺖ ﺍﺱ ﮨﺪﯾﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺗﮭﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﭘﭽﺎﺱ ﺳﺎﻝ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﺑﺮﺑﺎﺩ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﯽ۔

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍٓﮔﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

’’ ﻭ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟۃ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻨﯿﺮﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻮﺳﯽ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻓﻘۃ ﻣﻌﮭﻢ ﻓﯿﻤﺎ ﯾﻔﻠﻌﻮﻥ ﻓﯽ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﺍﻟﯿﻮﻡ ﯾﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﮑﻔﺮ ‘’

ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﮯ ﺟﺸﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﻧﮑﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻔﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮐﻮ ﻻﺯﻡ ﮐﺮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﺍﺏ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮩﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﭼﯿﻠﮯ ﺟﻮ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯿﮏ ﮐﺎﭨﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮔﯿﺖ ﮔﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﺸﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﮨﮯ؟
ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺷﮭﺎﺏ ﯾﻮﺳﻒ ﺍﻟﮑﺮﺩﺭﯼ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻔﯽ ؒ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

’’ ﻭﮐﺬﺍ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﯾﻮﻡ ﻓﺼﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﻟﻮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘۃ ﻟﮭﻢ۔ ‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺑﺰﺍﺯﯾﮧ : ﺝ۳ : ﺹ ۱۸۶ ‏)

ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﮐﯿﻠﺌﮯ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﺳﺐ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﮯ۔

ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺑﺰﺍﺯﯼ ﻧﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺑﮍﯼ ﻋﺠﯿﺐ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺟﻮ ﺻﻮﻓﯽ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﮐﮯ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﻟﮑﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﻧﮑﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺟﻮ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ ،ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﮐﺎﻡ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﻭﮦ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﺖ ﭼﮭﻮﮌ ﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻻﺋﮯ ﭘﺲ ﻭﮦ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻧﮑﻠﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻓﺴﻮﺱ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ‘‘ ۔ ‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺑﺰﺍﺯﯾﮧ : ﺝ۳ : ﺹ ۱۸۶ ‏)

ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﺟﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﯽ ﮐﮧ ﮐﻔﺎﺭ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ،ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺟﻤﻊ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ،ﻭﮦ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺳﺐ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﺳﺐ ﮐﺎ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﮯ ۔

The REAL Christmas Story: How a Prophet was turned into a god

By Abu Zakariya

On December 25th, most Christians around the world will be celebrating Christmas, a day that commemorates the birth of who they believe is their Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. A lot of Muslim commentaries at this time of the year tend to focus on highlighting links between Christmas and the pagan celebrations of old such as Saturnalia. We typically argue on the basis that the date of December 25th, and symbolic practices such as adorning trees with gold and silver, have direct parallels with paganism, and therefore such celebrations should be avoided.

Such arguments are unconvincing for many Christians. Putting to one side the possibility that many of the parallels may be purely coincidental (think about it, most calendar dates will coincide with a pagan festival as there are so many different pagan religions with so many different celebrations dotted throughout the year). Christians even manage to put a positive spin on things, they acknowledge such parallels but retort that the early Church Fathers assimilated many of the pagan practices that were popular with the masses and purified them in the process, taking people away from the worship of the pre-Christian, Graeco-Roman gods to the worship of the God of Abraham. In their minds, this is a good thing.

Even in the Islamic tradition, there are some rituals which have parallels with other religions. The example of Ashura springs to mind:

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came to Madinah, he found them fasting on one day, i.e., ‘Ashura’. They said: This is a great day; it is the day on which Allah saved Musa and drowned the people of Pharaoh, so Musa fasted in gratitude to Allah. He (the Prophet) said: “I am closer to Musa than they are.” So he fasted on that day and issued instructions to fast on that day. [1]

In another narration, we find the companions questioning the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the parallels of Ashura with the religions of the People of the Book:

Ibn ‘Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah fasted on the day of ‘Ashura’ and ordered the people to fast on it. The people said, “O Messenger of Allah, it is a day that the Jews and Christians honour.” The Prophet said, “When the following year comes, Allah willing, we shall fast on the ninth and the tenth.” [2]

We can see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t just assimilate this Jewish practice but differentiated it by changing some underlying elements, in this case by adjusting the date.

The point is that simple, ritualistic parallels in and of themselves should not be our focus. Coming back to Christmas, elements such as the date of Christmas are superficial when compared to the actual paganism that lies at the heart of Christian belief. There is a far more powerful strategy that we can adopt in our dawah, and that is showing the links between pagan belief and the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity. So rather than focussing on the when of Christmas, instead try to focus on the what. What is the essence of Christmas? It’s a celebration of the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, in the bodily form of Jesus. This shall be the focus for the rest of the article.


In order to understand the influence of paganism on the doctrine of the Trinity, we need to first understand the world into which Christianity was born and developed. The early followers of Jesus were followers of Judaism. In fact, Christianity started out as a movement within Judaism. Like Jews since the time of Moses, these early believers kept the Sabbath, were circumcised and worshiped in the Temple. The only thing that distinguished the early followers of Jesus from any other Jews was their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, that is, the one chosen by God who would redeem the Jewish people. Today, many Christian scholars agree that authors of the New Testament such as Matthew were Jewish believers in Jesus. The influence of Judaism on the New Testament is important because it helps us to correctly understand its message. The New Testament is full of terminology like “son of God.” Such language is interpreted literally by Christians today to mean that Jesus is God the Son, but is this correct? What was the intention behind the Jewish writers of the New Testament when they used such language? What did these terms mean at the time of Jesus?


When we turn to the Old Testament we find that such language permeates its pages. For example, Moses calls God “Father”: Is this the way you repay the Lord, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you? [Deuteronomy 32:6] Angels are referred to as “sons of God”: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. [Job 1:6] The Old Testament even goes so far as to call Moses a god: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” [Exodus 7:1] The Israelites are also referred to as “gods”: “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’”  [Psalm 82:6] What we can conclude is that such highly exalted language was commonplace and is intended figuratively; it is not a literal indication of divinity.

Even as late as the end of the first century, when the New Testament writers started penning their accounts of the life of Jesus, Jewish people were still using such language figuratively. In a conversation between Jesus and some Jewish teachers of the law, they say to Jesus: “…The only Father we have is God himself.” [John 8:41] The Gospel of Luke calls Adam a son of God when it recounts the lineage of Jesus: “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [Luke 3:38] Jesus even says that anyone who makes peace is a child of God: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” [Matthew 5:9] If the New Testament writers understood such language to be a claim to divinity, then they would have used it exclusively in relation to Jesus. Clearly, it denotes a person that is righteous before God and nothing more.

So we can see that such language, in and of itself, does not denote the divinity of Jesus. So where did such ideas come from?


The turning point in history came when Christianity ceased being a small movement within Judaism and Gentiles (non-Jews) started to embrace the faith in large numbers. We need to look to the pagan world of the Gentiles in order to understand the mindset of the people that received the New Testament message. Since the time of Alexander the Great, Gentiles had been living in a Hellenistic (Greek) world. Their lands were dominated by Roman armies, with the Roman Empire being the superpower of the world at the time. The Roman Empire itself was heavily influenced by Hellenistic religion, philosophy and culture. Greek gods and goddesses like Zeus, Hermes and Aphrodite, as well as Roman gods and goddesses like Jupiter, Venus and Diana, dominated the landscape. There were temples, priesthoods, and feasts dedicated to the patron god or goddess of a city or region; statues to the deities dotted the forums of the cities. Even rulers themselves were frequently worshipped as gods.

Gentiles from such a polytheistic background would have naturally understood Christian preaching about the “son of God” in light of a Greek or Roman god having been begotten by another. We can see this mindset manifested in the New Testament. In the Book of Acts there is an incident where the Gentile crowds think that Paul is Zeus come among them when he heals a crippled man:

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 

Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 

“Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. [Acts 14:11-15]

Here we see that the Graeco-Roman peoples that Paul and Barnabas were preaching to were in the habit of taking humans for gods. Despite Paul protesting that he was not a god, the people persisted in their belief: “Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.” [Acts 14:18] From this example we can see that according to Christian history, it was a common practice for people to attribute divinity to other humans. In spite of Paul openly denying being a god, the people continued to worship and sacrifice to him. We can conclude that even if Jesus himself rejected being God at that time, the mindset of the people was such that they would still have found a way to deify him.

With this background in mind, it’s easy to see how Judaic phrases like “son of God” took on a different meaning when transported out of their Jewish monotheistic context into pagan Greco-Roman thought. The Trinity doctrine arose neither in a vacuum, nor strictly from the text of Scripture. It was the result of the influence of certain beliefs and attitudes that prevailed in and around the Church after the first century. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world and so the primitive Church had to reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from pagan mythology. In the words of the historian and Anglican bishop John Wand, “Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ” [3]


It’s interesting to note that the Greco-Roman religions were filled with tales of gods procreating with human beings and begetting god-men. The belief that God could be incarnate, or that there were sons of God, were common and popular beliefs. For example, the chief god in the Greek pantheon, Zeus, visited the human woman Danae in the form of golden rain and fathered Perseus, a “god-man.” In another tale Zeus is said to have come to the human woman Alcmena, disguised as her husband. Alcmena bore Hercules, another “god-man.” Such tales bear a striking similarity to Trinitarian beliefs of God being begotten as a man. In fact, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr, considered a saint in the Catholic Church, said the following in response to pagan criticisms that Christianity borrowed from their beliefs about the sons of God:

When we say that the Word, who is our teacher, Jesus Christ the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he was crucified and died and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you [pagans] believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Jupiter. [4]

According to ancient Roman myth, Jupiter was the king of all the gods. Here Justin Martyr is telling Roman pagans that what the Christians believe about Jesus being the son of God is nothing different than what they believe about the sons of the god Jupiter. That the Church Fathers’ conception of the Trinity was a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism can be seen in the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century bishop who is venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. He also happens to be one of the great figures in the history of the philosophical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote:

For the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality. [5]

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither purely the polytheism of the Greeks nor purely the monotheism of the Jews, but rather a combination of both.

Even the concept of God-men who were saviours of mankind was by no means exclusive to Jesus. Long before Jesus was born, it was not uncommon for military men and political rulers to be talked about as divine beings. More than that, they were even treated as divine beings: given temples, with priests, who would perform sacrifices in their honour, in the presence of statues of them. In Athens for example, Demetrios Poliorcetes (Demetrios the Conqueror of Cities, 337–283 BCE) was acclaimed as a divine being by hymn-writers because he liberated them from their Macedonian enemies:

How the greatest and dearest of the gods are present in our city! For the circumstances have brought together Demeter and Demetrios; she comes to celebrate the solemn mysteries of the Kore, while he is here full of joy, as befits the god, fair and laughing. His appearance is solemn, his friends all around him and he in their midst, as though they were stars and he the sun. Hail boy of the most powerful god Poseidon and Aphrodite! For other gods are either far away, or they do not have ears, or they do not exist, or do not take any notice of us, but you we can see present here, not made of wood or stone, but real. So we pray to you: first make peace, dearest; for you have the power… [6]

The Athenians gave Demetrios an arrival that was fit for a god, burning incense on altars and making offerings to their new deified king. It must be pointed out that as time passed by, he did some other things that the Athenians did not approve of, and as a consequence they revoked their adoration of him. It seems that in the days before Jesus, divinity could be stripped away from human beings just as easily as it was granted. Perhaps the best known examples of God-men are the divine honours bestowed upon the rulers of the Roman Empire, starting with Julius Caesar. We have an inscription dedicated to him in 49 BCE discovered in the city of Ephesus, which says this about him [7]:

Descendant of Ares and Aphrodite

The God who has become manifest

And universal savior of human life

So Julius Caesar was believed to be God manifest as man, the saviour of mankind. Sound familiar? Now prior to Julius Caesar, rulers in the city of Rome itself were not granted divine honours. But Caesar himself was – before he died, the senate approved the building of a temple for him, a cult statue, and a priest. Soon after his death, his adopted son and heir, Octavian, promoted the idea that at his death, Caesar had been taken up to heaven and been made a god to live with the gods. There was a good reason that Octavian wanted his adopted father to be declared a God. If his father was God, then what does that make him? This deification of Caesar set the precedent for what was to happen with the emperors, beginning with the first of them, Octavian himself, who became “Caesar Augustus” in 29 BCE. There is an inscription that survives from his lifetime found in the city of Halicarnassus (modern Turkey), which calls Augustus [8]:

…The native Zeus

and Savior of the human race

This is yet another example of a divine saviour of mankind. Now Octavian happened to also be the “son of God” by virtue of his divine father Julius Caesar. In fact Octavian became known as ‘Divi filius’ (“Son of the Divine One”). These, of course, are all titles widely used by Christians today to describe Jesus. We must realise that the early Church did not come up with these titles out of the blue, they are all things said of other men before they were said of Jesus. For early Christians, the idea was not that Jesus was the only person who was ever called such things, this is a misconception. The concept of a divine human being who was the saviour of mankind was a sort of template that was applied to people of great power and authority. We’ve seen that the history of paganism is littered with such examples, and Jesus was just another divine saviour in a long list of divine saviours that had preceded him.


Pre-Islamic Arabia was a dreadful place to live in. Slavery was an economic institution with male and female slaves being bought and sold like animals. Illiteracy was common among the Arabs, as were alcoholism and adultery. Those with power and money took advantage of the poor by charging extremely high interest on loans. Arabia was a male-dominated society; men could marry any number of women. When a man died, his son “inherited” all his wives except his own mother. Women had virtually no legal status, for example they had no right to possess property and had little to no inheritance rights. Female infanticide was widely practiced with daughters often being buried alive.

It was not only the rights of human beings that were violated, but also the rights of God. The Arabs were a highly idolatrous people. The idolatry of pre-Islamic Arabia seeped into every facet of day-to-day life. Idols adorned their places of worship. Today the Ka’ba, situated in Saudi Arabia and the holiest place of worship for Muslims, contains neither idols nor images. But before Islam, the pagan Arabs housed 360 different idols in the Ka’ba. Idols were their travel partners whenever they set out on a journey, for the Arabs were very superstitious and believed that they would provide protection in a land plagued by highway robbery and kidnapping. They were also the source of their livelihoods, so central was the Ka’ba to idolatry that pagans from all over Arabia would make pilgrimage there.

In just 23 years, Islam managed to completely reform not only the social ills of Arabian society, but also its idolatry, taking people away from the worship of carved images and stones back to the worship of the One true God of Abraham. This is the testimony of Ja’far bin Abi Talib, who was a contemporary of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Here he informed the king of Abyssinia about the condition of his people and the positive change that Islam brought for them:

O King, we were an uncivilised people, worshipping idols, eating carrion, committing abominations, breaking natural ties, treating guests badly, and our strong devoured our weak. Thus we were until God sent us an apostle whose lineage, truth, trustworthiness, and clemency we know. He summoned us to acknowledge God’s unity and to worship Him and to renounce the stones and images which we and our fathers formerly worshipped. He commanded us to speak the truth, be faithful to our engagements, mindful of the ties of kinship and kind hospitality, and to refrain from crimes and bloodshed. He forbade us to commit abominations and to speak lies, and to devour the property of orphans, to vilify chaste women. He commanded us to worship God alone and not associate anything with Him, and he gave us orders about prayer, almsgiving, and fasting. We confessed his truth and believed in him, and we followed him in what he had brought from God, and we worshipped God without associating aught with Him. [9]

Just how did the Qur’an go about winning the hearts and minds of people, completely transforming every level of Arabian society in such a short space of time? The Qur’an takes into account the psychology of its audience, which is demonstrated in its use of language. In defining the relationship between God and mankind, the Qur’an avoids terms like “Father” when referring to God and “sons of God” when referring to human beings. Such language can be easily misunderstood, especially in the minds of those who come from a background of idolatry and are used to interpreting such language literally. There are even those who might take advantage of such ambiguous language in Scripture, by interpreting it in such a way as to try and justify idolatry. The Qur’an warns mankind against using ambiguity as the foundation for our beliefs:

It is He who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet]. Some of its verses are definite in meaning – these are the cornerstone of the Scripture – and others are ambiguous. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own [3:7]

The Qur’an confirms that those who believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God are imitating an ancient pagan concept: “The Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of God’: they said this with their own mouths, repeating what earlier disbelievers had said.” [9:30] When the Qur’an defines the relationship between God and mankind, it instead uses terms like Creator when referring to God, and we as the creation. Such terms leave no room for confusion and clearly distinguish between what is God and what is not – everything else. Such careful use of language shows the wisdom of the Qur’an’s source and the insight He has into the human condition. Our Creator knows the inner thoughts of man: “We created man – We know what his soul whispers to him: We are closer to him than his jugular vein.” [50:16]


Difference between the `Ulama-e-Haqq & `Ulama-e-Soo’

The `Ulama-e-Soo’

“Hadhrat `Ali bin Abi Talib (Radhiyallahu `Anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon there will dawn an age upon mankind when nothing will remain of Islaam but its name and nothing will remain of the Qur’aan but its text. Their Masaajid will be beautifully adorned structures, but devoid of Hidaayat. Their `Ulamaa will be the worst (of creation) under the canopy of the sky. Fitnah will emerge from them and Fitnah will return to them.”  
[This Hadeeth is narrated by Imam ibn `Adi (Rahmatullah `Alayh) in his Kitaab, “Al-Kamaal”, and this is also narrated by Imaam Bayhaqi (Rahmatullah `Alayh) in “Shu`b-ul-Imaan”, from `Abdullah bin Dakeen, from Ja`far bin Muhammad, from his father, from his grandfather, from Hadhrat `Ali bin Abi Taalib Radhiyallahu `Anhu].”

[Note: The meaning of “Nothing will remain of the Qur’aan but its text” is that although the original text of the Qur’aan Kareem will remain among the people, its true meanings will not be followed. Instead, Baatil misinterpretations will be invented by deviated Juhhaal and these will be followed by the people.]

The time which had been mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) has come upon us today. Morons devoid of even a shred of Shar`i `Ilm have invented their own meanings for what Allah `Azza wa Jal has said in the Qur’aan Kareem and for what Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) has said in the Ahaadeeth. These Baatil thumb-sucked opinions are then fed to the people, who follow them blindly like sheep.

The Deen brought to this Ummat by Sarkaar-e-Do Aalam (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam), which had been protected and spread throughout the Dunya by the Sahaabah-e-Kiram (Radhiyallahu `Anhum), which has reached those who live in this “Aakhir-uz-Zamaan” through a long line of Fuqaha, Mufassireen, Muhadditheen, Mu’arrikheen, and Huffaz-e-Kiraam all of whom had spent their entire lives studying this Deen, implementing it, teaching it to others, and safeguarding it in its pristine form as it had been revealed by Allaah Rabbul `Izzah to Hadhrat Jibreel-e-Ameen (`Alayhi Salaam) who brought it to Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) by the Command of Allah; these modern day `Ulama-e-Soo are displeased with this Deen.

These `Ulama-e-Soo’, who are the housewives of the Americans, are displeased with this Deen of Islam simply because their American Kuffaar masters are displeased with it. The Kuffaar find the Words of Allah Rabbul `Izzah in the Qur’aan Kareem and the words of Hudhoor (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) in the Ahaadeeth too ‘harsh’, therefore they bring out their dog scholars to attempt to destroy it through their Tahreefaat (Alterations of the intended meanings of the Qur’aan and Hadeeth) until it reaches a form which is acceptable to them.

However, the level of alteration wrought by their dogs are only acceptable to them initially; after some time these Kuffaar will again look over this ‘new’ Deen of Islaam created by the modernists, and find it yet too ‘harsh’ and ‘unpalatable’, so further Tahreefaat will again have to be made by their scholars and ‘Imams’.

This process will occur time and again until they feel they have succeeded in eradicating the Deen of Allah Rabbul `Izzah from the Dunya, but they will fail miserably in this attempt. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala has already made this promise in the Qur’aan Kareem:

“They desire to put out the Noor of Allaah Ta`ala with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His Noor, even if the Kaafireen detest it.” [Surah as-Saff: 8]

Therefore, Allaah Ta`ala will continue to safeguard this Deen. And Insha ’Allah Ta`alala there will always be such `Ulama-e-Haqq who will stand up to defend the Deen of Allah Rabbul `Izzah even if it means their heads must be severed from their shoulders. Is that not the least one can do for the Deen of Allah Ta`ala?

However, the reality of this Deen of Islam has never, and will never penetrate the hearts of plastic “Molvis” and “Imaams” who had only embarked on the quest of studying the `Ilm of Deen for some Nafsaani reasons. Therefore, despite their having studied the classical Kutub of Deen which had been written by the `Ulama-e-Kiraam and Akabireen of the glorious past of Islam, no vestige of `Ilm or Nooraniyat can be found in them.

Defining “`Ilm”, Hadhrat Mufti Muhammed Shafi Usmani (Rahmatullah `Alayh) said:

“`Ilm is such a Noor which, after gaining it, one is restless until he acts upon it. If so then it is `Ilm, otherwise it is merely information. And information will be questioned on the day of Qiyamah; that from the information which one had acquired, how much had he acted upon.”

Hence, it is evident that these `Ulamaa-e-Soo’ who are famous for their “Halaal Fatwas”, have gained nothing from their study of the Kutub of Deen. A person is only a true `Aalim when the `Ilm he has acquired is accompanied by his heart being overwhelmed by the Taqwallaah; such Taqwa which compels him to speak the Haqq even if it is bitter, and even if it will draw the hatred, insults and criticisms of people upon himself.

This is because such an `Aalim is aware of and believes in the Aayat of the Qur’aan Kareem, wherein Allaah Rabbul `Izzah says:

“O Rasul (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam)! Convey everything which has been revealed to you from your Rabb. If you do not do this, then you would not have conveyed His Risaalah (Message). And know that Allah Ta`ala Himself will protect you from the people. Definitely, Allaah Rabbul `Izzah will never guide the Kuffaar towards the path of success.”   [Surah al-Maa`idah: 67]

Therefore, in obedience to this Aayat-e-Kareemah, an `Aalim-e-Haqq will propagate the true Deen of Islam regardless of the consequences.

After all, what is there for a person who believes in Allaah  Subhanahu wa Ta`ala to fear, in reality, from the part of the enemies of Islam?

Allah Rabbul `Izzah states in the Qur’aan Majeed:

“From the servants of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala, only the `Ulama truly fear Him. Verily, Allah is Most Powerful and Most Forgiving.” [Surah Faatir: 28]

Since Allah Rabbul `Izzah has stated in the Qur’aan Majeed that only the `Ulama truly fear Him, realize that until the end of time, such `Ulamaa-e-Haqq will exist upon the face of this Dunya who possess true Taqwallah and who will stand up in defense of His glorious Deen regardless of the consequences which will befall them.

Such `Ulama will always exist in the world, however rare they may be to find.

However, the calamity is that the majority of the `Ulama today are `Ulama-e-Soo’ in the true sense of the word. They are the kind of `Ulama that Hudhoor (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) feared for his Ummat. They are the Aimmah-e-Mudhilleen.

The job of these Aimmah-e-Mudhilleen is only to cause Fitnah amongst the Muslimeen in their vileness, through obscuring the true Deen of Islaam from them.

Their job is to slander, criticise, defame, and insult any true Muslim who takes it upon himself to carry out the Fardh (Obligatory) duties which Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala has placed upon him.

As though it were not bad enough that these false `Ulama whose heads will litter the pathway towards Jahannam make Kitmaan-ul-Haqq (Concealment of the Truth), and distort the Aayaat-e-Kareemah and Ahaadeeth-e-Mubaarakah from their intended meanings, as though this was not enough of an ugly crime on their part, these sinister “Molvi Sahebs” have taken it upon themselves to criticise every true `Aalim of the Deen as being an “extremist”, and spend their miserable time in attempting to refute that which they know to be the Haqq from Allaah `Azza wa Jall Himself, which the true `Ulamaa are preaching.

Let these `Ulama-e-Soo’ meditate on the threat of Rasoolullaah (Sallallahu Ta`aalaa `Alayhi  wasallam) in the Hadeeth of the punishment which will be meted out to them: That on the Day of Qiyamat, bridles of fire will be placed around their neck.

They may receive some false honour from the Munaafiqeen in the life of this world, but they will receive no honour when they are dragged into the Divine Court of Allaah Rabbul `Izzah, by the Malaa’ikah of `Adhaab. Every `Aalim who, despite knowing the Haqq conceals it, is a “Dumb Shaytaan”.

So let these Dumb Shayaateen understand that they will not get away with their contemptible and cowardly Kitmaan-ul-Haqq indefinitely. This is the major calamity; to witness that those who are supposed to be the “Warathaat-ul-Ambiyaa” (The Heirs of the Ambiyaa `Alayhimus Salaatu was Salaam), the flag-bearers of the Deen of Islam, the defenders of the Deen of Islam, turning out to be it’s greatest destroyers.


The corruption of the `Ulama should not come as a surprise to the Muslim Ummah. That the majority of the `Ulama are `Ulamaa-e-Soo’ rather than `Ulamaa-e-Haqq should not come as a surprise to anyone, as it was, after all, the promise of Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) that as the time proceeds towards the Day of Qiyaamah, Allaah Rabbul `Izzah would gradually take away the true `Ulama from the Dunya, until only such pseudo-`Ulamaa remain who are scum and filth like that which is carried by the torrents.

“Isma`eel bin Abi’ Uwais narrated to us; Malik narrated to me from Hishaam bin `Urwah, from his father, from (Hadhrat) `Abdullah bin `Amr bin al-`Aas (Radhiyallaahu `Anhu) that he said, “I heard Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) saying:

“Verily, Allah does not take `Ilm away from the servants all of a sudden. Rather, He takes it (`Ilm) away (from the Dunya) gradually through taking away the `Ulama (who are upon the Haqq). This continues until such a stage is reached when not a single (true) `Aalim is alive on the face of the earth. At that time, mankind will take Juhhaal (Ignoramuses) as their leaders. These Juhhaal (ignoramuses) will be asked questions (by the people) and will issue Fataawaa without any `Ilm (Knowledge). So these people (The Juhhaal) are deviates and they will cause others to become deviates.” [Bukhaari Shareef]

“Qutaybah bin Sa`eed narrated to us; Jareer narrated to us from Hishaam bin `Urwah, (who narrated) from his father, that he (his father) said, “I heard Hadhrat `Abdullah bin `Amr bin al-`Aas (Radhiyallahu `Anhu) saying, “I heard Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) saying:

Verily, Allah does not take `Ilm away from the people all of a sudden. Rather, He takes it (`Ilm) away (from the Dunya) gradually through taking away the `Ulama (who are upon the Haqq). This continues until such a stage is reached when not a single (true) `Aalim is left on the face of the earth. At that time, mankind will take Juhhaal (Ignoramuses) as their leaders. These Juhhaal (ignoramuses) will be asked questions (by the people) and will issue Fatawa without any `Ilm (Knowledge). So these people (The Juhhaal) are deviants and they will cause others to become deviants.” [Muslim Shareef]

“Harun bin Ishaq al-Hamdani narrated to us; `Abdah bin Sulayman narrated to us from Hisham bin `Urwah, (who narrated) from his father, (who narrated) from Hadhrat `Abdullah bin `Amr bin al-`Aas (Radhiyallahu `Anhu) that he said, “Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) said:

Verily, Allah does not take `Ilm away from the people all of a sudden. Rather, He takes it (`Ilm) away (from the Dunya) gradually through taking away the `Ulama (who are upon the Haqq). This continues until such a stage is reached when not a single (true) `Aalim is left on the face of the earth. At that time, mankind will take Juhhaal (Ignoramuses) as their leaders. These Juhhaal (ignoramuses) will be asked questions (by the people) and will issue Fatawa without any `Ilm (Knowledge). So these people (The Juhhaal) are deviants and they will cause others to become deviants.” [Tirmidhi Shareef]

“Wakee` narrated to us; Hisham informed us from his father, from (Hadhrat) `Abdullah bin `Amr (Radhiyallahu `Anhu) that he said, “Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) said:

Verily, Allah does not take `Ilm away from the people all of a sudden. Rather, He takes it (`Ilm) away (from the Dunya) gradually through taking away the `Ulama (who are upon the Haqq). This continues until such a stage is reached when not a single (true) `Aalim is left on the face of the earth. At that time, mankind will take Juhhaal (Ignoramuses) as their leaders. These Juhhaal (ignoramuses) will be asked questions (by the people) and will issue Fataawaa without any `Ilm (Knowledge). So these people (The Juhhaal) are deviants and they will cause others to become deviants.” [Musnad-e-Ahmad]

One can see quite clearly that which Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) had promised occurring throughout the Dunya in this day and age; as the `Ulama-e-Haqq are slowly dying out as Allah Rabbul `Izzah is taking them away from this Dunya, as is part of His Takween (Master Plan), Juhalaa without an inkling of Shar`i knowledge are creeping out of every nook and cranny to mislead the masses with Baatil opinions which they have sucked from their thumbs.

This Deen of Islam was perfected during the very lifetime of Janaab-e-Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam Ajma`een (Ridhwaanullaahi Ta`aalaa `Alayhim). Whatever was Haqq in that time is Haqq today, and will remain Haqq until the Day of Qiyaamah. Whatever was Baatil then is Baatil today, and will remain Baatil until the Day of Qiyamah. Understand this clearly.

The Deen of Islam was sent by Allah Rabbul `Izzah to Nabi (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam), perfected before his demise, spread throughout the world by the Sahaabah-e-Kiram, and codified by the A’immah-e-Mujtahideen for the benefit of the Ummah.

There is absolutely no place in the Shari`ah of Islam for “new and modern interpretations”. This Shari`at is not based upon the Raa’i (opinion) of every Tom, Dick and Harry.

It is Haraam for any self-proclaimed “scholar” to manufacture his own Baatil opinions and peddle them off as being part of the Deen of Islaam. If any “`Aalim” goes against the Ijma` of the Fuqaha of this Ummat, then such a person is not an `Aalim by any stretch of the imagination; his being a deviated Jaahil (ignoramus) is manifest. Such a person ceases to be from the A’immat-ul-Hudaa (Imaams of Guidance), and instead becomes from the accursed “Aimmat-ul-Mudhilleen” (Imaams of Misguidance).

This Fitnah of the rise of these A’immah-e-Mudhilleen is something which had been promised to this Ummat by Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) more than one thousand four hundred years ago.
“Ya`qoob narrated to us, “My father narrated to me from his father who said, “A brother of `Adi’ bin Artaa narrated to me from a man from Hadhrat Abu
Darda’ (Radhiyallaahu `Anhu) who said, “Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) had told us that, “The thing which I fear most for you (my Ummah) is (the rise of) the A’immat-e-Mudhilleen. (Such Imaams who lead others towards deviation).” [Musnad-e-Imaam Ahmad]

In this Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) himself refers to these people as “Al-A’immat-ul-Mudhilloon”. It is the reality of the matter that whichever unfortunate person undertakes upon himself to follow one of these “Imaams of Dhalaalah (Deviation)” is going to end up in the fire of Jahannum. That is because such people are very far from the original, true Deen of Islam which was brought to us by Janaab-e-Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) and practiced by the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam  (Ridhwaanullaahi `Alayhim Ajma`een). These people have invented a Deen of their very own which they follow and invite others towards. This religion of theirs (which they have invented) is such a (false) Deen which is appealing to those in whose hearts lurk the wretched evils of Kufr and Nifaaq. This religion of theirs is quite acceptable to their western Kuffaar masters as it is a religion which is very far removed from the pristine Deen of Islaam.

“Yazeed narrated to us; Daylam bin Ghazwan informed us; Maymun al-Kurdi narrated to us from Abu`Uthmaan an-Nahdi who said, “Indeed I was sitting under the Mimbar of (Hadhrat) `Umar (Radhiyallahu `Anhu) whilst he was addressing the people, and he said in his Khutbah (Speech): “I heard Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) saying:

“Verily the thing I fear most for this Ummah is every Munafiq who is eloquent in speech.”  [Musnad-e-Imaam Ahmad]

This is a quality which many people are affected by; eloquence in speech.

Many of these deviated, modernist `Ulama-e-Soo’ are very eloquent in the field of oratory. Although they may be speaking utter trash in their Bayaanat, however, as they have a very eloquent manner of expressing themselves, the crowds are immediately impressed by them and accept everything which they say regardless of whether it conforms to Qur’aan and Sunnah or not.

“`Ali bin Ahmad bin Nadhr al-Azdi narrated to us; `Aasim bin `Ali narrated to us; `Abdul Hakeem bin Abi Layla narrated to us from (Hadhrat) Mu`adh bin Jabal (Radhiyallahu `Anhu) who said, “I heard Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) saying:

Indeed the things which I fear most for this Ummah are three: The slip-up of an `Aalim, the argumentation of a Munaafiq using the Qur’aan, and that the (treasures of the) Dunya should be opened up for you.”  [Mu`jam al-Kabeer lit Tabraani]

In this day and age, all of the things which were feared by Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) have become rife. Many of the `Ulama who had been upon the Haqq in the past have fallen into error, and modernist deviants are fabricating against the Deen of Islam and using the Qur’aan Kareem as their “Daleel (Proof)”.

Although we know that whatever Sarkaar-e-Do Aalam (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) had promised will come to pass, nevertheless it is disappointing to note the speed at which the putrefaction of the `Ulama has taken place. In this belated age, deviants who resemble the `Ulama of Bani Israa`eel have sprung up declaring Ribaa to be Halaal and Ribaa transactions, and have attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of the people by assigning to these Haraam Riba transactions Arabic names in order to pass them off as being Islaamic. Others have undertaken the process of “Halaalizing” Haraam carrion, and have even evoked the Aayat of the Qur’aan Kareem, “Wa  Ta`aamulladheena Ootul Kitaaba Hillullakum (The food of the Ahl-e-Kitaab has been made Halaal for you)” and have concluded there from that it is “Halaal” (Permissible) for a Muslim to visit the stores of Shaytaan such as “McDonalds” and stuff his stomach to the bursting point with the filthy, Haraam Maytah (Carrion) being served there.

While there are some who legalize digital pictures adding technicalities and false reasonings, others have shamelessly issued “Halaal Fatwas” to Khamr (Alcohol) and beverages containing Khamr, and have reached these Fatawa through twisting the Qur’aan and Ahaadeeth to accommodate their bestial Nafs and Shaytaan, who is their partner with whom they dine when they consume this Haraam carrion and alcohol which they have legalised.

These despicable `Ulama-e-Soo’ are amongst the things which are to blame for the Roohani decline of the Ummat of Imam-ul-Ambiyaa’i wal Mursaleen, Rasulunaa (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam). The Fussaaq (Flagrant transgressors against the Ahkaam of Allah Rabbul `Izzah) may now comfortably consume pig-gelatine (due to `Ulama-e-Soo’ devoid of any vestige of Roohaniyat tendering infirm excuses of it (the pig-gelatine) having undergone a process of Istihaala (metamorphosis) thereby rendering it fit for Muslim consumption) and become intoxicated on beverages such as “Coca-Cola” whose proceeds fund the Jewish nation of Israel, and aids their armies of Shaytaan in murdering Muslim men, women and children.

However, the Fussaaq and Fujjaar may get away with any form of vice and transgression in this Aakhir-uz-Zamaan, as the Kuffaar have employed such `Ulama who are most apt at finding a way to make anything Halaal.


In order to understand the deviation of the “new-age” `Ulama-e-Soo’, it is also necessary to understand who the true `Ulama were. A person will only understand how lamentable is the state of the present `Ulama when he understands how great were the `Ulama of before; how much were their sacrifices for the Deen of Allaah Ta`ala; how much torture and persecution they had gone through; how strong were they in their “Zuhd” (Abstinence) towards this Dunya and how powerful was their Ta`alluq (Connection) with Allah Rabbul `Izzah. This is amongst the main sicknesses ailing the present day `Ulama and the thing which makes them so very different from the glorious `Ulama of the past; the lack of this Sifat (Quality) of “Zuhd” (Abstinence) in them towards the Dunya.

In the miserable pursuit of Jaah (name and fame) and worldly riches, these `Ulama have sold away the Deen of Allah Ta`ala. For the sake of the pleasure of their Kuffaar masters and being allowed to travel freely to whichever place of Fisq they so desire, these `Ulama-e-Soo’ have allowed themselves to become “Dumb Shayaateen” by denying and apologizing for any such facet of the Deen of Islam which the west are displeased with, be it  the issue of slavery, or the issue of polygamy, or any other issue from the variety of Masaa’il of Deen which enrages the Kuffaar. These `Ulama-e-Soo’ have exchanged the beautiful, everlasting gardens of Jannah which Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala would have kept for them in return for this ephemeral world.

Understand that the very act of apologising for any such thing which Allaah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala had ordained or Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wasallam) had commanded us with, is an act of Kufr. When these `Ulama-e-Soo’ pule out feeble apologies for what they perceive in their wretched, deficient understandings to be “harsh tones” employed by Allah Rabbul `Izzah in the Qur’aan Kareem and by Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) in the Hadeeth Shareef, they are in fact committing an act of arrant Kufr. When these people apologise for and interpret away the Shar`i Hudood which was revealed by none other than Allah Rabbul `Izzah Himself, they are fiendishly implying that their level of ‘Rahmat’ (Mercy), ‘`Adl’ (Justice), ‘`Ilm’ (Knowledge) and ‘Hikmat’ (Wisdom) is greater than that of Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta`ala, hence the need for them to re-interpret and re-mould the Shari`ah of Allah Ta`ala into a more suitable ‘modern, civilised religion’.

Regardless of the level of `Ilm one may have attained, regardless of the number of Kitaabs he may have authored in the various `Uloom of Islam, regardless of the quantity of his Asaatidhah, and regardless of the level of worldly standing and repute he may have accrued for himself over the years, it is not permissible for any `Aalim in this belated age, even if he has attained the rank of ‘Shaykh-ul-Hadeeth’, or is the Grand Mufti of the country in which he resides, to propagate any belief, or issue any Fatwaa (Shar`i Verdict) which is at variance with the Ijma` of the Ummah for the last fourteen centuries.

“As for him who sets himself against the Rasul (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) and follows a path other than that of the Mu’mineen even after Hudaa (True Guidance) had become clear to him, We will let him go the way he has turned to, and We will cast him into Jahannum – an evil destination.”  [Surah an-Nisa: 115]

This is the `Adhaab warned of by Allah Rabbul `Izzah in the Qur’aan Majeed which will be meted out to whichever unfortunate person has taken it upon himself to follow any Tareeq (Path) other than the Tareeq which is followed by the Mu’mineen – The Mu’mineen referred to here are primarily, of course, the Sahaabah-e-Kiram (Ridhwanullahi `Alayhim Ajma`een), the Taabi`een and the Tab-e-Taabi`een, known as the ‘Khayr-ul-Quroon’ – that such a person will be cast by Allah Rabbul `Izzah into the depths of Jahannum, the worst of destinations.

The primary purport of this Aayat of the Qur’aan Kareem is that those Kuffaar who have chosen a Sabeel (Path) other than that of the Mu’mineen – which is Islam – will face the consequence of everlasting `Adhaab in the fire of Jahannum. However, the Mufassireen have explained that this Aayat-e-Kareemah is also in reference to such people who are in conflict with ‘Ijmaa`’. For example, it is well known that Ribaa is absolutely Haraam. This has been mentioned clearly by Allaah Tabaaraka wa Ta`aalaa in the Qur’aan Majeed. Therefore, if any person were to come along in this day and age and contest that Ribaa is in fact Halaal, then such a person is Mardood (Rejected) and his ‘Fatwaa’ will summarily be rejected regardless of whatever ‘Dalaa’il’ (Proofs) he may eke out to support his nefarious claim. This is because there are such things which are “Ma`loomum minan Deen bidh Dharoorah” (Known to necessarily be part and parcel of the Deen). The Fatwa of any `Aalim in the present time has to necessarily be in conformity with Qur’aan and Sunnah as explained to us by the A’immah-e-Arba`ah (The Four Imams). Therefore, as these A’immah had codified for us the Deen of Islaam, the ‘Fatwa’ of any `Aalim, be he the Grand Mufti himself, may not depart from the purview of the Madhaahib-e-Arba`ah (The Four Madhhabs, namely Hanafi, Shaafi`i, Maaliki and Hambali). Understand this matter clearly. The deviants who have issued Baatil “Fatawa” stating that music and dancing is permissible, pictures of animate beings are permissible, meat slaughtered by the alleged “Ahl-e-Kitaab” in these times – who are in fact no more than atheists – is “Halaalan Tayyibah” (Pure and Wholesome for Muslim consumption), etc. Such Fatawa are baseless, and the issuers will have to answer to Allah Rabbul `Izzah on the Day of Qiyamah for their Tahreef of the Qur’aanic Aayaat and the Ahaadeeth of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam). They themselves bear the enormous sin for issuing these Fatawa, and those Juhhaal who follow them in these matters too shall bear the sin for their Ma`siyatullaah (Disobedience of Allaah). Do not labour under the assumption that if one were to follow them he would be “Ma`soom” (Sinless) and the burden of sin would be borne by them alone. It is upon him to reject such Fatawa which are in conflict with the Deen of Islam and follow only such reliable `Ulama who will impart to him the Haqq.

Some narrations of a few of the great `Ulama-e-Kiram of the past will follow hereunder.

Imam-e-A`zam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi `Alayhi):

Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah`Alayh), besides being the greatest Faqeeh (after the Fuqaha of the Sahaabah (Ridhwanullahi `Alayhim Ajma`een), was also amongst the greatest Auliya-ullah who had ever lived. The quality of Zuhd (Abstinence) towards the Dunya was prevalent in him to a great degree, as well as the quality of Taqwa which has to necessarily accompany whatever `Ilm of Deen one has acquired. As a result of possessing these qualities, he could never be cowed down nor bought over by the ruling authorities of his time.

Ibn-e-Hubayrah, the then Governor of Kufa, requested Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) to visit him occasionally, and stated that he would be very pleased if the Imaam were to do so. However, due to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullaahi `Alayh)’s intense dislike for corrupt rulers – of which category ibn-e-Hubayrah fell into – he refused this request quite harshly and said to him, “For what reason should I visit you? Were you to favour me, I would be associating myself with your evil, and were you to persecute me you would add to my insults. I have no interest whatsoever in any worldly position or wealth. Whatever I have been granted by Allaah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala, I am pleased with.”

Look at this Haal (State) of Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullaahi Ta`ala `Alayhi). He out rightly refused to even visit the rulers of his time due to their corrupt ways. Compare this state of Imam-e-A`zam (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) with the wretched state of the present “A’immah” and so-called “Muslim Rulers” who are seen unashamedly standing side by side with the Kuffaar presidents.

Here Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) was unwilling to even visit a Muslim ruler due to his corruption. What would his opinion not have been of the `Ulama and Muslims of today? Let those who consider themselves `Ulama study the biography of the great A’immah of the past and see how far they have veered from their paths.

This same Yazeed bin `Umar bin Hubayrah, during the Khilaafat of Marwaan II, tried to persuade Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) to accept some job in the government. When he refused, ibn Hubayrah had him put behind bars and flogged everyday, on the hope that this would cause Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayhi) to change his mind. However, ibn Hubayrah had no such luck, and Imam Saheb stuck to his decision. Seeing Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi `Alayhi)’s resoluteness, ibn Hubayrah realised that his plan was useless and had Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) freed.

After this incident, historians write that Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) left Kufa and migrated to Hijaz, wherein he stayed for a period of two and a half years until the overthrowal of the Ummayad Khilafat by the Abbasids.

Hakam bin Hisham, one of the Umayyad Khulafa, one day remarked about Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh), “Our government (The Umayyads) had offered two alternatives to Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi `Alayhi) – either to accept the keys of our treasuries or get his back flogged. He preferred the latter.”

In another narration it appears that during the Abbasid Khilafah, some dispute had arisen between the Khalifah of that time, “Al-Mansur”, and his wife Hurra Khatun. The Khatun wanted the matter to be referred to Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayhi), to which al-Mansur agreed. Hence, Imam Saheb was summoned to the court of the Khalifah, while his wife sat behind a curtain. Al-Mansur posed the question to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi `Alayhi):

“In Islam, how many wives is a man permitted to have at one time?”

Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) replied, “Four.” Hearing this reply, al-Mansur was pleased and shouted to his wife, “Did you hear what he said?” Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) continued, “However, there is a Shart (condition) for this; and that is that the man should be capable of doing equal justice to all four of his wives.”

The last part of Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi `Alayh)’s reply was not to the liking of the Khalifah, al-Mansur. When Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) arrived at his home, he found a man waiting for him with a bag filled with Dinars (gold coins) and a letter of thanks of the wife of the Khalifah. Imam-e-A`zam (Rahmatullah `Alayh) rejected the gift and sent the man back to her with the message that he had issued his Fatwa only for the sake of the establishment of the Haqq; he had not done so for fear or favour.

Later on, this same Khalifah, Al-Mansur, requested that Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) assume the post of Qadhi (Judge). Al-Mansur was labouring under the misconception that Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Ta`ala `Alayh) would be like the “`Ulama” of the present times and sell Islam out for his sake.

Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Ta`ala `Alayh) replied to him, saying, “Suppose a complaint is lodged against you in your court and you want me to decide in your favour, and threaten to throw me in a river should I do otherwise; rest assured that I would rather be drowned than tamper with Justice.” On receiving this reply from the Imam, Al-Mansur was silenced, and did not make this request of his again for some time.

In the year 146 A.H. (763 C.E.), when Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) was in the sixty-sixth year of his life, the Abbasid Khalifah, Al-Mansur, once again offered him the post of “Qadhi-ul-Qudhat” (The Chief Qadhi of the State). However, as the Abbasid Khulafa were known for their Mu`tazili `Aqaa’id (Beliefs), and Al-Mansur was known to be a corrupt ruler, Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) again refused this offer of his. Al-Mansur persisted, but Imam Saheb (Rahmatullahi `Alayh) continued to decline, stating that he regarded himself as being unfit for the post. Al-Mansur was adamant, and became enraged at this comment of Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullaah `Alayh). He shouted, “You are a liar!” Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) replied, “If I am a liar then you have in fact just upheld my contention, as a liar can never be fit for the post of a ‘Qadhi’.”

Al-Mansur refused to accept this. He took an oath that Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullaah `Alayh) would become the “Qadhi-ul-Qudhat”. Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) in return took an oath that he would never do such a thing. The people who were present in the court at this time were amazed at the boldness of the Imam (Rahmatullah `Alayh). One of the courtiers, Rabi`, said to Imam Saheb (Rahmatullah `Alayh), “You have taken Bay`at (the oath of allegiance) at the hands of Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen (Al-Mansur).” Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) replied, “Yes, but it is easier for the Khalifah to compensate for his oath.”

Al-Mansur, thereupon, had Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) thrown in jail. However, even in jail Imam-e-A`zam (Rahmatullaah `Alayh) continued imparting `Ilm to those who were permitted to come to him.

This state of affairs continued until the year 150 A.H. (767 C.E.), wherein Al-Mansur finally had the cooks of the state mix poison in the food of the Imam (Rahmatullaah `Alayh). After eating it, Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) began feeling the effects of the poison. Realising that his Maut (Death) was near, Imam-e-A`zam (Rahmatullah `Alayh) performed Sajdah to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala and passed away in this condition.

There are varying reports concerning the amount of Tilaawat (Recitation) of the Qur’aan Kareem performed by Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) before his death. Some reports state that Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) made seven thousand Khatams (Completions) of the Qur’aan Kareem before he died, in the cell wherein he was being imprisoned.

When the news of the death of Imam-e-A`zam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) was announced, the people arrived in their droves to attend the Janaazah Salaat. 

It is narrated that more than fifty thousand people were present at the first Janaazah Salaat, and Imaam Khateeb Baghdadi (Rahmatullah `Alayh) mentions that so many people continued turning up that the Janaazah Salaat was performed six times over to accommodate for the large number of people who had turned up. He said further that for a full twenty days after Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayhi) was buried, people continued performing the Janaazah Salaat for him. One of the people who were present, by the name of Shaybah bin Hajjaaj, commented on the death of Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayh) that “Night has settled over Kufa.”
Night had indeed settled over Kufa; over the entire world, in fact. And the sun would never again rise on a greater Faqeeh than he had been.

This is the honour Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala had bestowed to this great Imam. Honour the likes of this is only bestowed by Allah Tabaraka wa Ta`ala to such `Ulama who, like Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi), defend the Deen of Islam and state the Haqq without fear or favour. For such `Ulama Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala has decreed honour. As for those who make Kitmaan-ul-Haqq (Hide the Truth) after having learned it, there will only be disgrace for them in this Dunya and in the Aakhirah (Hereafter).

Imam Darul-Hijrah, Maalik bin Anas (Rahmatullah `Alayh):

In the year 133 A.H. (750 C.E.), the Umayyads were overthrown by the Abbasids, and Abu’l `Abbas as-Suffah became the first Khalifah of “Al-Khilafat-ul`Abbasiyyah” (The Abbasid Dynasty). Abu’l `Abbas as-Suffah ruled for a period of four years, until his death on the tenth of June, 137 A.H. (754 C.E.).

After the death of Abu’l `Abbas as-Suffah, the Khilafat was assumed by al-Mansur, the same man who had persecuted Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah `Alayhi).

The people who had been living under the Umayyad dynasty were displeased with their manner of ruling, and the corruptness of the rulers. Hence, when the Khilafat shifted to the Abbasids, the people assumed that they would turn out to be better rulers than their Umayyad predecessors. This assumption, however, later turned out to be false, to the great misfortune of the people.

Nevertheless, al-Mansur succeeded Abu’l `Abbas as-Suffah to the Khilafat, and forced people to take Bay`at (the oath of allegiance) from him out of duress. This was of course not permissible, so Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh) issued a Fatwa that the Bay`at the people had taken at the hands of al-Mansur was null and void, as they had done so only out of compulsion.

Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh) based this Fatwaa of his upon a Hadeeth of Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam) wherein he says that:

ليس على مستكره طلاق

The meaning of this Hadeeth Shareef is, “The divorce given by one under coercion does not take effect.”

Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh) used his Ijtihaad upon this Hadeeth to arrive at his Fatwa that Bay`at given to a ruler under compulsion is not binding.

Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh) himself felt that there was no person worthier for the Khilafat that Hadhrat `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali bin Abi Taalib (Rahmatullah `Alayh), who was known famously as “Nafs-e-Zakiyyah” (The Pure Soul).

The Governer of Madinah at this time was a man by the name of Ja`far, who was a cousin of al-Mansoor. When Ja`far heard of this Fatwa of Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh), he requested him once to retract it. When Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh) refused, as he would not twist the Shari`ah for the sake of al-Mansur or anyone else, Ja`far had him imprisoned, flogged, and paraded through the streets of Madinah Shareef in his blood-stained clothes.

Here again, we see the great A’immah of Islam refusing to make Tahreef of any part of the Deen for any person’s sake. This is amongst the Shi`aar (Salient Features) of the `Ulama-e-Haqq; that neither the greatest amount of persecution, nor the greatest amount of temptation presented by the enemies of Islam towards them accepting some worldly riches in return for becoming a “Dumb Shaytaan” turned them away from the proclamation of the Haqq. When this quality disappears in an `Aalim, he becomes Mal`oon (Accursed), however, when this quality is present, Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala bestows honour and dignity upon him, and this was the case with Imam Malik (Rahmatullahi `Alayh), as besides the amount of honour Allah Ta`ala gave him with regards to him being loved and revered by all the Muslims who came after him, even in this very Dunya Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala honoured him. When Al-Mansur heard of what had transpired between Ja`far and Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh), instead of being pleased, he had Ja`far – who was his cousin – punished, and himself apologised to Imam Malik (Rahmatullaah `Alayh). On another occasion he presented a gift of three thousand Dinars (gold coins) to Imam Malik (Rahmatullah `Alayh), but his gift was refused.

Imam Ahlus Sunnah, Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullahi `Alayh):

To speak about `Ulama-e-Haqq who gave their lives in defense of the Deen, without making mention of that person who alone defended the `Aqeedah of Islam at a time when all those around him had sold out, and to whom the Ummat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wasallam) is eternally indebted, would be a very great Zulm (Injustice).

This person is none other than Imam Abu `Abdullah, Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hambal ash Shaybani (Rahmatullah Ta`ala `Alayhi).

As my aim here is not to present a biography of the lives of these A’immah but merely to display to the readers their inherent quality of standing up for the Haqq, which is the result of nothing other than possessing a heart filled with Imaan and Yaqeen (Conviction), I will present here only such details of the life of Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh) which have some relevance to the issue at hand.

During the last days of the Abbasid Khalifah, Ma’mun ar-Rasheed (born 13 September, 786 C.E.), he became a fanatical follower of the Kufr `Aqaa’id (Beliefs) of the Mu`tazili sect, which included their Shaytaani belief regarding “Khalq-ul-Qur’aan” (The Creation of the Qur’aan Kareem). As Ma’moon ar-Rasheed at this time was the Khaleefah of the Muslimeen, he was able to impose these Kufr beliefs upon the masses, and would persecute whoever dared to disagree with them. As a result,  all the `Ulama present in his time sold out their Imaan and their Deen in order to safeguard their lives.

At this devastating time of the formulation and imposition of Shaytaani Kufr beliefs, Allah Rabbul `Izzah selected from the Ummah of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu  `Alayhi wasallam) an `Aalim possessing such a remarkable degree of Imaan, `Ilm, Taqwaa and Shujaa`at (Bravery) the likes of which was unparalleled in the world, to establish the Haqq (Truth) and smash out the brains of the exponents of Baatil (Falsehood).

Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) alone stood up against this Kufr belief of “Khalq-ul-Qur’aan” (The belief that the Qur’aan is not eternal but created), and thereby became a target for persecution by the Zaalim Khalifah.

Ma’mun ar-Rasheed had his guards arrest Imam Ahmad (Rahmatullah `Alayh) and deliver him to his court. On arriving there, the Khalifah began questioning him regarding his `Aqeedah, and whether he accepted their Mu`tazili belief of “Khalq-ul-Qur’aan”. Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh) told him, “No. The Qur’aan is Kalaamullaah (The Speech of Allaah Ta`aalaa), how can it ever be regarded as a creation?”

At this, Ma’mun ar-Rasheed and his puppet `Ulama began arguing with Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) in the manner of the plastic `Ulama of today; with many Shaytaani “Dalaa’il” (Proofs), some of which Shaytaan has whispered into their ears and others which they have sucked out of their bestial Nafs.

Let the `Ulama-e-Soo’ of today understand that as they have formulated “Dalaa’il” (Proofs) for the Haraam which they have legalised, the corrupt `Ulama-e-Soo’ and deviants of the past had formulated and extracted “Dalaa’il” for their Kufr beliefs in the same manner.

Those who have studied the Taareekh (History) of Islam know that many deviated sects – some were deviated, others were outright Kaafir – had sprung up in the past; The Shi`ah (Kuffaar), Khawaarij, Mu`talizah, Jahmiyyah, Jabariyyah, Qadariyyah, Murji’ah, Mujassimah, Mushabbihah, Mu`attilah, etc. And each of these sects claimed that their deviated `Aqaa’id (Beliefs) were based upon the Qur’aan Kareem and the Ahaadeeth of Rasulullaah (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam), and each of the followers of these Baatil sects had their “Dalaa’il” (Proofs) which their A’imma-tul-Kufr (Imaams of Kufr) had furnished for them.

Therefore, the ignorant Muslim should not be fooled into believing the deviated beliefs and opinions expressed by the corrupt `Ulama-e-Soo’ of today merely because they have presented a smattering of false “Dalaa’il” to appease their Nafs. On closer inspection, one will find all the “Dalaa’il” presented by the `Ulama-e-Soo’ to be nothing more than a smoke screen; once the smoke has been blown away by the Haqq, the true, hideous form of Baatil hidden beneath is exposed.

Continuing with the story of Imam Ahmad (Rahmatullah `Alayh);

After their long dispute with Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) in which the Mu`tazili A’immah presented numerous false proofs in support of their Kufr beliefs, while Imam Ahmad (Rahmatullah `Alayh) continued to remain firm and unwavering upon the Haqq regardless of their “Dalaa’il”, Ma’mun ar-Rasheed had him imprisoned.

Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh) remained in prison for the entire duration of the reign of Ma’mun ar-Rasheed, until the latter’s death in the year 217 A.H. (9 August, 833 C.E.).

After the death of Ma’mun ar-Rasheed – who was the son of Harun ar-Rasheed – the Khilafat was assumed by Mu`tasim Billaah. Al-Mu`tasim was the same fanatical Mu`tazili as his predecessor, and brought Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullaah `Alayh) out of jail to ask him the same question as before; does he accept that the Qur’aan is created?

The A’immah-e-Mujtahideen were specially selected by Allah `Azza wa Jall; spending years in jail would not detract them from the Siraat-ul-Mustaqeem in the slightest. Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullahi `Alayh) replied to Mu`tasimah as he had replied to Ma’mun; The Qur’aan is the Uncreated Speech of Allaah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala.

Mu`tasim Billah became angry at this reply and had Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh) flogged and thrown back in jail. However, after a period of two years, he was allowed to return home.

Some time later, al-Mu`tasim passed away. This was in the year 226 A.H. (842 C.E.).

After the death of Mu`tasimah, his son, “Al-Wathiq” took control of the Khilaafat.

Al-Wathiq was slightly more lenient than Ma’mun and Mu`tasim; he continued to allow Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh) to live freely and did not put him back in prison. Thereafter, in the year 232 A.H. (847 C.E.), Al-Wathiq died and his brother, “Al-Mutawakkil” took over. Alhamdulillah, with the assumption of power by Al-Mutawakkil the Mu`tazili beliefs came to an end, as al-Mutawakkil rejected their `Aqeedah and instead followed the true `Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama`ah.

This was how the trial of Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) came to an end, after a tremendous amount of Sabr on his part. In Arabic, this trial was known as the “Mihnah” (Trial; testing), and refers to the imposition of Mu`tazili belief by Al-Ma’mun during the end of his life in 833 C.E., until it was revoked by Al-Mutawakkil in the year 848 C.E. So this was a period of fifteen years.

That is how Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala has created this Dunya; there will be Fitan (Trials; tribulations), but each of these has a set period of time. They are not everlasting; after it has run its course, Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala removes it.

For Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh), this Fitnah ended in the year 848 C.E. Thereafter Al-Mutawakkil welcomed Imam Ahmad (Rahmatullah `Alayh) to his court, and even requested him to impart Ahaadeeth to his son, al-Mu`tazz. However, Imaam Ahmad (Rahmatullaahi `Alayhi) declined due to ill health and old age.

Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullah `Alayh) passed away on the day of Jumu`ah in the month of Rabi`-ul-Awwal, in the year 241 A.H., at the age of seventy seven. His Janaazah Salaat was attended by 850,000 people; so many people were they that Saffs (Rows) had to be formed in the streets of Baghdad, in the bazaars, and even on boats in the Tigris River.

This was the honour bestowed to him by Allaah Subhanahu wa Ta`alaa in this Dunya and in the Aakhirah, and the Muslim Ummah will be indebted to him until the Day of Qiyamah.

There is a vast treasure of such stories regarding the sacrifices of the `Ulamaa-e-Haqq of the past from which I could continue to recount, however, I will suffice with only these narrations concerning such `Ulama who are accepted as being A’imma-tul-Hudaa (Imaams of Guidance) by all Muslims, even the deviants.

As one can see from the stories mentioned above, all of the `Ulamaa-e-Haqq of this Ummah were put through trials and tribulations regarding this Deen, however, none of them sold out or agreed to even compromise a single belief of Islam regardless of the amount of torture they were forced to endure on account of this. 

This is because they possessed the true Taqwallaah, and knew that in comparison to the `Adhaab which will be meted out by Allaah Rabbul `Izzah in the Aakhirah, the `Adhaab of this Dunyaa is paltry and finite. 

Out of fear of the enemies of Islam the `Ulama today have agreed to make Tahreef (Alteration) of the Qur’aan and Ahaadeeth from their true meanings, not realising that with every new “Halaal” Fatwa they issue to such things which have been known to be Haraam since the inception of Islaam, they are accumulating for themselves a mountain of `Adhaab in the Aakhirah.

Were these sell-out `Ulama to make Muraaqabah (Contemplation) and Tadabbur (Reflection) over the Aayaat of the Qur’aan Kareem and the Ahaadeeth of Hudhoor (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wasallam), they would come to realise that neither the greatest amount of worldly riches nor the greatest amount of worldly torment is worth selling out the greatest Ni`mah (Favour) which Allaah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala has bestowed upon them, which is the Ni`mah of Imaan.