All posts by islamreigns

A student of Islam

Refuting Asrar Rashid’s Tirade against Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd (Rahimahullah)

Sectarianism and Its Roots in the Indian Subcontinent – A Response to Asrar Rashid

[By Maulana Zameelur Rahman (Daamat Barakatuhum)]


Asrar Rashid of Birmingham, UK, is a preacher who claims to be non-partisan, non-sectarian, and an objective, unbiased “Sunnī Muslim”. However, the subjectivity, and often baselessness, of his claims on the nature and roots of one of the most pronounced intra-Sunnī divides in the Indian Subcontinent proves otherwise. His entire thesis on the causes of the divide is coloured by highly subjective, sometimes evidently false, sectarian readings of history.

In the following, we will deconstruct his historical narrative from a recent talk[1] which has been uploaded online. Relevant parts of the talk will be transcribed and responded to in some detail. Asrar Rashid provides his account in a roughly chronological order. Thus, the following will document (and transcribe) the substantive points in his account and demonstrate the clear bias, subjectivity, lack of academic rigour, and at times outright falsity, of his claims, exposing the fact that they are tainted by sectarian allegiances and tropes, and are not based on an objective assessment of the evidence. In the course of the response, we also hope readers will gain a better appreciation of some of the oft-discussed issues that Asrar Rashid touches upon.

Sectarian bias will often cloud a person’s judgement. If, for example, sectarian mythology is rooted in the idea that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān after having come under the direct influence of Arabian Wahhābīs, it will be difficult to entertain the possibility (in this case, the fact) that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān years before setting foot in the Ḥijāz, that is, before even the remotest contact with the Arabian Wahhābīs. In deconstructing Asrar Rashid’s narrative, we will observe several other such examples of conclusions that are clearly products of a biased reading.

In constructing this biased narrative, Asrar Rashid also resorts to some clearly false claims, like the claim that Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī was hung by the British (while in reality he died a natural death at the Andaman Islands), or that Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir reports that Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī only revolted against the British because they stopped paying him (whereas nothing of the sort is mentioned in Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir).

In short, the response will challenge Asrar Rashid’s claims to objectivity. If he really is objective and sincere, as he claims, will he reassess the claims he has made, some of which are patently false, in light of the evidence that will be cited below? Will he answer the challenges that will be put to him below in an objective manner? Or will he regurgitate the standard claims and dismiss the evidence in favour of sectarian (mis)readings of history (and thus proving he is only shedding the label of sectarianism and not its reality)?

Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Taqwiyat al-Īmān

Asrar Rashid says:

Then in the 1800s, two additional influential books were written. One by Charles Darwin in 1859… Additional to this, a book was written by an individual known as Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī. The book was entitled Taqwiyat al-Īmān. This book was released in 1821. I would say these are the two most notorious books written in the 1800s.

Mawlānā Nūr al-Ḥasan Kāndhlawī has written a thorough study on Taqwiyat al-Īmān.[2] Most of the discussion on Taqwiyat al-Īmān below will, therefore, be based on his research.

Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written some time in, or before, the year 1818.[3] We know this because the oldest available manuscript dates to 1818, preserved in Madrasa Ṣawlatiyya at Makkah.[4] Taqwiyat al-Īmān was first published (i.e. printed) in 1826 or 1827 at the Maṭba‘ah Aḥmadī run by Sayyid ‘Abdullāh ibn Sayyid Bahādur ‘Alī.[5]  Maṭba‘ah Aḥmadī was also the first to publish al-Fawz al-Kabīr by Shāh Waliyyullāh, Mūḍiḥal-Qurān by Shāh ‘Abd al-Qādir and other works of the Waliyyullāh family.[6] Asrar Rashid should therefore identify his source for the claim that Taqwiyat al-Īmān was first released in 1821.

It appears the claim, not surprisingly, may be the product of sectarian narrative bias, according to which, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd (1779 – 1831) came under the influence of Wahhābī preachers when he visited the Ḥijāz, and Taqwiyat al-Īmān was a product of direct Wahhābī influence. More about this “contact theory” will be mentioned later. Since Shāh Ismā‘īl left for Ḥajj in 1821, it appears the claim is being made that Taqwiyat al-Īmān was released in the same year. But there are several problems with this theory. Firstly, there is clear evidence that Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written at the latest in 1818, several years before the Ḥajj. Secondly, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd arrived at Ḥijāz in 1822, not 1821.[7] Thirdly, Taqwiyat al-Īmān is based on an earlier work of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in Arabic, called Radd al-Ishrāk, which was one of his earliest works written around the year 1798.[8]

In brief, Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written several years before the Ḥajj journey of 1821 (and was first published some years after the Ḥajj journey). If Asrar Rashid is objective, will he concede the point that Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written before the Ḥajj journey, before the remotest contact with the Arabian Wahhābīs?

Did the British Royal Asiatic Society Print and Distribute Taqwiyat al-Īmān?

On the subject of Taqwiyat al-Īmān, Asrar Rashid mentions in a related talk[9]:

He wrote a work that is known as Taqwiyat al-Īmān in 1821…Of course the book was published by the Royal Asiatic Society. So the British published the work, they disseminated the work in Urdu and English, in the Indian subcontinent. These are the facts that they dislike me mentioning. These are the points. These are facts. Today I would like to say people are not living in villages. These Muslims in UK are not living in villages, where anyone is able to misinform them. Go and check these facts for yourselves. Most of these books are available as PDFs on the internet.

The “fact” Asrar Rashid refers to is a myth that was created some time during the latter half of the twentieth century. Refuting this myth, Mawlānā Nūr al-Ḥasan Kāndhlawī mentions: “Taqwiyat al-Īmān was never published by the Asiatic Society, neither before its publication at Maṭba‘ Aḥmadī nor after. I have a copy of an old index of the Asiatic Society’s publications printed in January 1833. The index lists all the Arabic, Persian and Urdu publications of Asiatic Society up to that date, but there is no sign of Taqwiyat al-Īmān there. Furthermore, the available books printed by the Asiatic Society, and its published articles, that I have seen do not include Taqwiyat al-Īmān.”[10] Mawlānā Nūr al-Ḥasan shows that the claim that the British published and distributed Taqwiyat al-Īmān comes about a century and a half after the events.

He mentions that the only truth to this allegation is that the Royal Asiatic Society published an article by Mir Shahamat Ali that included an English translation of Taqwiyat al-Īmān. This was published as part of their journal, most likely some time in the 1850s.

If Asrar Rashid is objective, will he accept that there is no reliable evidence for his claim that the British printed an Urdu edition of Taqwiyat al-Īmān and distributed it in India?

Shāh Ismā‘īl’s Alleged Links with the Arabian Wahhābīs

Asrar Rashid further says:

The book that led to the inception of sectarianism within the Indian subcontinent, as well as the book that led to a further division…The division caused by the work of Muḥammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhāb as well as the work of Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī was a real theological issue that faced the Muslims in the Middle East as well as the Indian subcontinent. How were the two issues linked? Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī was born in 1879 (sic)[11]. Muḥammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhāb was still alive. And Muḥammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhāb was very influential in the Arabian peninsula at that time. When Muḥammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhāb died, passed away, in 1892 (sic)[12], Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī was 13 years old. One of the places that Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī travelled to was the Arabian peninsula and he adopted what people termed at that time as the “Wahhabi creed”.

Asrar Rashid also claims that Shāh Ismā‘īl’s uncles and forefathers were “Sunnīs”, but that “he was against the methodology of his forefathers”.

Both the claims that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd came under direct influence of the Arabian Wahhābīs and that he was against the methodology of his forefathers are completely baseless.

The alleged links with the Arabian Wahhābīs suffer from the following problems.

Firstly, as stated, there is no evidence. Harlan O. Pearson a (neutral) academic researcher on Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd’s movement states while discussing Shāh Ismā‘īl and the group’s pilgrimage:

The Indian Muhammadi [i.e. the movement of Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd and Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd] had no apparent connection with the Arabian Wahhabi movement. By performing the pilgrimage, they were performing a basic religious duty in preparation for their later activities.[13]

Secondly, when Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, together with a large cohort, arrived at Arabia, Wahhābīs had already been defeated and had been expelled from the Ḥijāz, and thus held no influence there. Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī explains:

It becomes very clear from the abovementioned events that Ḥaḍrat Sayyid [Aḥmad Shahīd] Ṣāḥib and his companions arrived at Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah at the end of 1237 H (1822 CE)…This is a period in which no remnant or trace remained of the Wahhābī government and its peoples neither in Ḥijāz nor any town or village of Najd.

In fact, five years previously Egyptian forces under the command of Ibrāhīm Pāshā ibn Muḥammad ‘Alī Pāshā, the viceroy (Khedive) of Egypt, under instructions from Sulṭān ‘Abd al-Majīd Khān, crushed them, not only in Madīnah Munawwarah and Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah, but in the whole of the Ḥijāz and the famous areas of Najd. Those that were left of them became absconders, fleeing to far off places in mountains and jungles. Thus, Shāmī has mentioned them clearly in the Ḥāshiyah of al-Durr al-Mukhtār, in the third volume, stating that in 1233 H, Egyptian forces completely annihilated them.

On page 87 [of The Indian Musalmans] W.W. Hunter, after mentioning that the Wahhābīs took control of Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah, Madīnah Munawwarah and other regions, wrote: ‘It was Mehmet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, who at last succeeded in crushing the Reformation. In 1812, Thomas Keith, a Scotchman, under the Pasha’s son, took Medina by storm. Mecca fell in 1813; and five years later, this vast power, which had so miraculously sprung up, as miraculously vanished, like a shifting sand mountain of a desert.’ …

In short, when Sayyid Ṣāḥib and his companions reached Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah in Sha‘bān of 1237 H, no Wahhābī ruler, scholar or preacher was there, and nor were they at the borders or fringes. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s death had occurred long before. Thus, they had no chance of adopting the Wahhābī methodology from them, and nor is it established through any reliable means that they had met with any Wahhābī.

Thus, to affiliate these respected ones to this sect is a completely slanderous and false propaganda. These respected ones were disciples of Ḥaḍrat Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ṣāḥib Dehlawī (Allāh’s mercy be upon him), and are his followers in external and esoteric knowledge. They had received such perfection from the benefit they acquired [from him] that no match or equal of theirs could be found in depth of knowledge, juristic understanding, Taṣawwuf, speech and writing, neither in Hindustan nor in Arabia, Egypt, Levant and so on. Their writings, speeches and actions are a testament to this. How can such people of perfection become followers and imitators of others? How can this come to a sound mind? Especially when these others are less than them in every perfection?[14]

Would Asrar Rashid accept that there is no objective historical evidence to support his “contact theory”?

Detailed accounts are available of the Ḥajj journey[15], including that Shāh Ismā‘īl taught Ḥujjatullāh al-Bālighah (the celebrated work of his grandfather) while at the Ḥijāz, that the Ṣūfī tract Ṣirāṭ e Mustaqīm was translated to Arabic, and that many pledged their allegiance to Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd (1786 – 1831), and so on, but nothing about coming into contact with Wahhābī preachers.

Thirdly, as explained earlier, Asrar Rashid believes Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written after his conversion to Wahhābī belief. But as explained earlier, a simple chronology disproves this. Radd al-Ishrāk and its derivative work, Taqwiyat al-Īmān, were both written years before the Ḥajj.

Differences between Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Wahhābīs

Fourthly, there are important differences between the ideologies of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and the Wahhābīs. In Taqwiyat al-Īmān, which was supposedly written under Wahhābī influence, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd wrote: “Yes, if ‘O Allāh give me something by means of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir’ is said, that is fine.”[16] In other words, he permits Tawassul through personalities, which Wahhābīs do not.

In another work written in Arabic called ‘Abaqāt[17], on the topic of Ṣufī metaphysics, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd includes the Ash‘arīs and Māturīdīs amongst those on the truth, as well as those who subscribe to the different Ṭarīqas of the Ṣūfīs.

He states:

Divergence and disagreement have occurred in every field. It is of two kinds. One is divergence between those on falsehood and those on truth, like the divergence between jurists of the Shī‘ah and of Ahl al-Sunnah; and between Ash‘arīs and Mu‘tazilah; or between the heretical Wujūdīs and the learned Wujūdīs; or between those who use wine and intoxicants in their meditations and those who use litanies and prayer; or between those who treat the vanity of the heart by abandoning the main features of Sharī‘ah and those who treat it by giving attention towards sins and falling short in good deeds. You can find similar examples. The rule on such divergence is the necessity of calling one group specifically correct and, in the same way, calling the other incorrect.

Another kind of divergence is amongst adherents of truth (ahl al-ḥaqq) like the divergence between the four imāms or between the Ash‘arīs and Māturīdīs or between the Warā’i Wujūdīs and the Ẓilli Shuhūdīs, or between the adherents of the different Ṭarīqas (of Taṣawwuf). The rule on this is that each of them are on a right road in most issues, and each have a direction to which they turn, so compete with each other in good deeds [and don’t argue with each other]. Whoever follows any one of them will succeed in attaining the goal.[18]

Thus, Shāh Ismā‘īl explicitly states his allegiance to Sunnī schools of ‘aqīdah, in contrast to Wahhābīs. Will Asrar Rashid acknowledge this?

It is not certain when ‘Abaqāt was written. In a later work called Yak Rozah (written in 1826), when constructing his arguments against Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd references the beliefs of the Ash‘arīs and Māturīdīs, in particular their differences on the topic of “Takwīn”.[19] This demonstrates that even after his Ḥajj journey, he did not abandon his affiliation to these two schools. Will Asrar Rashid accept that this would be uncharacteristic of a true “Wahhābī”?

There is no evidence therefore that Shāh Ismā‘īl abandoned the methodology of his forefathers. In‘Abaqāt, he declares that his major source of learning is from his uncles,[20] and the work ‘Abaqāt derives from the teachings of his grandfather.[21] Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (1832 – 1890) writes about Shāh Ismā‘īl: “He followed the footsteps of his grandfather in word and deed both, and completed what his grandfather started, and fulfilled what was obligatory on him, and what is for him remains…He wasn’t one to invent a new methodology in Islām as the ignorant claim.”[22]

Some may assume that Shāh Ismā‘īl’s emphasis on eradicating idolatrous practices suggests foreign influence. But, in fact, even such teaching can be traced to the writings of Shāh Waliyyullāh.[23] Moreover, Shāh Ismā‘īl’s conception of shirk is not the same as Wahhābīs, more on which will be written below.

“The Wahhābī Creed”

Asrar Rashid continues:

The Wahhābī creed at that time, and in later times also, the main creedal points in which they had heresy was one being anthropomorphism as well as believing that the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has no connection with his nation today…This belief was a belief that the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is connected to his nation. But the movement of Muḥammad bin ‘Abdil Wahhāb removed this from some people in the Middle East and the movement of Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī removed this from some of the people of the Indian subcontinent.

Asrar Rashid identifies two areas of “Wahhābī heresy”, one anthropomorphism and the other removing a connection with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Some have alleged that Shāh Ismā‘īl promoted anthropomorphism, but this is an unsubstantiated claim[24] and contradicts his explicit statements found in ‘Abaqāt[25]

Moreover, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd did not remove any connection with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He wrote a eulogy of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) called Mathnawī Silk-e-Nūr. Part of the eulogy states: “Although outwardly that pure body is hidden from these eyes beneath the earth, still, its light stands in its place, as there is a place for it in every sound heart.”[26]

Moreover, as Mawlānā Madanī states:

In Wahhābī belief and practice, it is impermissible to travel with the objective of visiting the revered Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Thus, their writings and works are available [stating this]. If, Allāḥ forbid, this was the belief of these respected ones [i.e. Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and their followers], why did the entire group, having travelled to Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah, go to Madīnah Munawwarah? And why did they remain there for three months, from the end of Dhu l-Ḥijjah until Rabī‘ al-Awwal?[27]

Thus, the idea that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd removed the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) connection with the Ummah is unfounded.

Shāh Ismā‘īl and Shirk

Strangely, Asrar Rashid omitted to mention Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s alleged adoption of flawed Wahhābī conceptions of shirk. In Wahhābī belief, certain actions like slaughtering an animal while taking an individual’s name or calling out for help from a dead saint are deemed to be major shirk that expel a person from Islām, irrespective of the person’s intentions or beliefs.[28] The difference between Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Wahhābīs on this point will be explained in a little more detail, as in the mind of many of Shāh Ismā‘īl’s detractors this is the clearest evidence of a connection between his ideology and that of Wahhābīs.

While Shāh Ismā‘īl condemns idolatrous practices, the people he targets are those who believe saints have extraordinary powers in which, like Allāh, they operate above created means (asbāb) and are free-acting. He describes the kind of shirk he is addressing in Radd al-Ishrāk, from which Taqwiyat al-Īmān derives.

He states in Radd al-Ishrāk:

Realise that the shirk which the divine books came to nullify and the prophets were sent to eradicate is not limited to someone believing that the one he worships is equal to the Creator (Blessed and Exalted is He) in the necessity of existence or in encompassing knowledge of all creation or in creating the basic existents like the heaven and the earth, because it is not from the character of a human being to be mixed up with such belief unless he is disfigured like Fir‘awn and his likes, and no one can believe that the divine books were revealed and prophets were sent only to correct such disfigured ones only. How can this be when the Arab idolaters who the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) called “idolaters” and fought and spilt their blood, put their children into captivity, and took their wealth as spoils, would not believe this as evidenced by His (Exalted is He) statement: “Say: In Whose hand is the dominion of all things and He grants protection and is not granted protection against, if you know, and they will say: Allāh. Say: Then how are you deluded?’ (Qur’ān, 23:88-9) and there are many such verses?

Rather, the meaning is to make another besides Allāh a partner with Him (Exalted is He) in divinity (ulūhiyyah) or lordship (rubūbiyyah). The meaning of “divinity” is to believe in respect to him that he has reached such a degree in qualities of perfection like encompassing knowledge, control by mere power and will, that he is beyond comparison and similarity with the rest of creation; which is by believing that nothing occurs…but that it is impossible for it to be hidden from his knowledge and he is witness to it; or believing that he controls things by force, meaning his control is not part of the means [Allāh has put in creation] but he has control over the means. The meaning of “lordship” is that he has reached such a degree in referring needs [to him], asking for solutions to problems and asking for the removal of tribulations by his mere will and power over the means that he deserves utmost servility and humbleness. That is, there is no limit to the extent of servility and humbleness shown to him, and there is no servility or humbleness but it is good in respect to him, and he is deserving of it…[29]

Shāh Ismā‘īl goes onto mention some actions which are derived from these beliefs. Shirk, in his understanding, is fundamentally a mistaken belief, not something based merely on a person’s actions. Actions, however, can be manifestations of shirk, but these do not necessarily take a person out of Islām. ‘Uthmān Nābulūsī, a student of Sa‘īd Foudah in Jordan, and author of a work refuting mistaken Wahhābī conceptions on “Tawḥīd”, commented after reading Shāh Ismā‘il’s introduction to the above work (Radd al-Ishrāk): “This introduction is completely unproblematic, and there is a massive difference between what he said and what Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said.”[30]

The shirk that Shāh Ismā‘īl is refuting is similar to what Shāh Waliyyullāh described as the belief of the idolaters, that is, a belief in Allāh being in need of subordinate deities who function as His agents in controlling certain affairs.[31] Towards the beginning of Taqwiyat al-Īmān itself, Shāh Ismā‘īl explains that this is the shirk he is refuting. While describing the people he is refuting, he states:

If a sensible person were to ask these people, “You claim īmān but do acts of shirk. Why do you combine these two [contradictory] paths?” They answer: “We do not do shirk but we are expressing our devotion towards prophets and saints. We would only be idolaters (mushrik) if we regarded these prophets, saints, pīrs and martyrs as equals to Allāh. This is not what we believe. Rather, we regard them to be slaves of Allāh and His creatures. Their power of discretion was given to them by Allāh Himself. By His approval they apply their control over the universe. Calling onto them is the same as calling onto Allāh, asking help from them is the very same as asking Him. They are beloved to Allāh, so whatever they want they will do. They will intercede to Him on our behalf and are His agents. By reaching them we reach Him and by calling them we draw near to Allāh. The more we ask them the closer we get to Allāh.”[32]

As can be seen, Shāh Ismā‘īl is addressing a specific type of belief amongst some of the ignorant Muslims of India, which amounts to major shirk, and is akin to the idolatrous beliefs of the pagan Arabs the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fought. In his condemnation of shirk, Shāh Ismā‘īl does describe certain acts as “shirk”, but he did not necessarily believe these to amount to major shirk on their own.[33]

A fatwā of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd is reproduced in the Fatāwā of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Ganohī clarifying this:

Question: In the situation that some polytheistic practices that have been mentioned in the treatise Taqwiyat al-Īmān like taking a vow by other than Allāh, kissing a grave, draping a cloth over it, taking an oath by a name beside Allāh’s, and other matters similar to these, have occurred from Zayd, should Zayd be called a disbeliever, and is his blood and property regarded as lawful, and is it permissible to treat him in the way other disbelievers are treated, or not?

Answer: Regarding Zayd as a complete disbeliever, and to treat him in the way of disbelievers, based only on the actions mentioned in the question, is not permissible, and the person who treats him, merely due to the occurrence of the aforementioned actions from him, in the way of disbelievers, is sinful.

All that was written in the treatise Taqwiyat al-Īmān, its detail is that just as it is transmitted in noble ḥadith that faith is a little more than seventy branches and from all the branches the best is to say, “There is no deity but Allah”, and the lowest is to remove anything harmful from the path, and similarly in other narrations it occurs that modesty is a branch of faith, and similarly it occurs in a number of narrations that patience, chivalry, good characteristics are branches of faith, and this is while it has frequently been observed that some of these qualities are found in disbelievers also; for example, many disbelievers are modest and many are well-mannered; thus, due only to finding the trait of modesty in this disbeliever, he cannot be called a believer, nor can he be treated in the way of the believers; but, it should be known that modesty is one branch of faith, and is extremely beloved to Allāh, even if this person is not beloved [to Him] because he is a disbeliever; nonetheless, this habit of his is desirable.

Similarly, since shirk is in opposition to faith, it must also have this number of branches. Thus, merely on account of taking an oath by other than Allāh, one cannot be declared a mushrik, although this act of his is to be understood as an act of shirk, and this action should be swiftly condemned and debased, and the one who does so should be reprimanded in a manner [suited to his condition]; because it is possible that just as this branch of shirk is found in the person, many branches of faith are also present, so because of those branches of faith, he will be accepted by Allāh although this action of his is rejected.

Muḥammad Ismā‘īl, author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān, may he be pardoned, wrote this.
Jumāda l-Ūla, 1240 (1824)[34]

In brief, the specific belief that Shāh Ismā‘īl regarded to be true shirk is to believe that someone apart from Allāh has independent powers. Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī explains this idolatrous belief as follows:

Some have the belief that Allāh (Exalted is He) granted a certain creature that is near to Him some independent power to bring benefit and harm in such a manner that in order to bring benefit or harm to his advocate or opponent he is not dependent on a particular will of Allāh. Although if He wanted to stop him, then again the power of Allāh will become dominant. This is just as rulers give their representative governors specific powers in such a way that their administration at that point in time is not dependent on the acceptance of the central ruler. However, if he wanted to stop them, then the ruler’s decree will become dominant. This is belief in causative agency (ta’thīr). The Arabian idolaters had this belief with respect to their false gods.[35]

Finally, it should be noted that there was a forged copy of Radd al-Ishrāk attributed to Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in which the text is altered to make it appear to be a summary of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. The forgery has misled some to believe that Radd al-Ishrāk derives from Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. Mawlānā Nūr al-Ḥasan Kāndhlawī discusses the forgery in his study on Taqwiyat al-Īmān.[36]

Taqwiyat al-Īmān did certainly contain harsh language as acknowledged by the scholars of Deoband like Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī[37], Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī[38] and Mawlānā Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī[39]. The latter even said, “It contained harshness that lessened its benefit”[40], but Mawlānā Thānawī points out that the firm words were used as treatment for the prevailing ignorance of that era.[41]

Historical Narrative: Reconstructing Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd as a Violent Religious Zealot

Asrar Rashid moves onto reconstructing a historical narrative that portrays Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd as a violent extremist and his theological opponent, Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī, as a brave upholder of armed struggle. He states:

When Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī passed away in 1831. He passed away in Balakot, which is in Pakistan…The people who reside in that area were Muslims. They say he went there to preach Tawḥīd. Some say he went to fight the British. But observing ISIS today, we would note that wherever this creed has spread, it has always spread by the use of the sword…

This is an entirely false narrative. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd did not go to Balakot to “preach Tawḥīd” or to “fight the British”. In 1826, a couple of years after the Ḥajj, Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd had started a campaign of Jihād against the Sikhs (whose capital was in Lahore). He travelled to Afghanistan and north-west India to gather support from tribal chiefs. After pushing back some Sikh attacks, he gained the trust and respect of tribal chiefs, who handed over leadership to him. Eventually, he was declared amīr of Peshawar and surrounding areas, and Sharī‘ah was enforced under his command. In 1831, he decided to go to Kashmir to set up a base there to continue the Jihād against the Sikhs. Balakot was en route to Kashmir, and a place where the Muslim fighters felt they could carry out other related activities. However, while at Balakot some Muslims betrayed Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd and his army, and guided the Sikhs to their whereabouts. A battle ensued, and Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd and Ismā‘īl Shahīd were martyred at the hands of the Sikhs.[42]

It is Asrar Rashid’s sectarian bias that does not allow him to see this movement as a sincere effort to end Sikh brutality against Muslims and restore Islām to those lands. Through a sectarian lens, he is forced to view Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd as a “Wahhābī”, and thus reinterpret his military activities in light of those of the Arabian Wahhābīs.

Debates Between Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī and Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd

Continuing his historical account, Asrar Rashid says:

When this work Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written, this work like its counterpart in the Middle East Kitāb al-Tawīd caused sectarianism which exists until this day …. At that time a prominent scholar known as Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) refuted the work Taqwiyat al-Īmān. He refuted him on a few theological points. One of those points was that Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī considered it possible for Allāh (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā), the divine power of Allāh (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā), to bring out into existence those things which we would deem as being impossible. If something is impossible, Allāh (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā) He does not will that which is impossible. So, in any given time there could only be one Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, one finality of prophets. The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) who is described in al-Quran al Karīm as Khātam al-Nabiyyīn the finality of prophets, there can only be one finality of prophets in any given time. Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāh) refuted Ismail Dehlawi on this point where he considered it possible for Allah (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā) to bring multiple prophets like our Messenger (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Why is this considered from the realm of impossibility? One reason being there can only ever be one Khātam al-Nabiyyīn finality of prophets… Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) wrote Taqīq al-Fatwā, he wrote Imtinā‘ al-Naīr refuting the ideology of Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī. And numerous other ‘ulamā’ also wrote refutations against Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī at that time.

Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (1797 – 1861), about whom more will be written below, wrote a brief refutation of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in 1826, to which the latter wrote a response called Yak Rozah. The debate occurred in response to a sentence of Taqwiyat al-Īmān. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was discussing a mistaken conception of shafā‘ah (intercession), called “shafā‘ah al-wajāhah” (intercession of status), in which it is believed that Allāh suppresses His original intent to punish one deserving of punishment because someone holding a high status intercedes, and He does not wish to cause disruption in His Kingdom on account of displeasing the intercessor. As Shāh Ismā‘īl explains, one who holds such a belief is a “true mushrik and a complete ignoramus, and has not understood the meaning of divinity in the slightest, and has not realised the greatness of this Owner of the Kingdom.”[43] Then, explaining the power and greatness of Allāh, he said: “It is the nature of this King of Kings that in a single moment, had He so wished with one command of ‘Kun’, He would create thousands of prophets, saints, jinn and angels equal to Jibra’īl, upon him peace, and Muḥammad, Allāh bless him and grant him peace; and would turn the whole universe from the throne to the earth upside down and put another creation in its place.”[44] He goes onto say that if all creatures were like Jibra’īl and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this would not increase in the lustre of Allāh’s kingdom, and similarly if all creatures were devils and dajjals this would not decrease from the lustre of His Kingdom.[45]

In context, Shāh Ismā‘īl’s statement is justifiable, given that he was trying to drive home the point to readers (who would entertain the belief in “shafā‘ah al-wajāhah”) that Allāh has no need for His creation and does not depend on them in the slightest. But Allāmah Faḍl al-Haqq Khayrābādī picked up on a technical point, claiming that it is intrinsically impossible for there to be an equal (mithl/naẓīr) to Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him), so the scenario Shāh Ismā‘īl presented was not even hypothetically possible.

In Yak Roza, Shāh Ismā‘īl wrote a response. He explains that for an equal to come into existence is included within Divine Power but its materialisation is impossible. He presents evidence from the Qur’ān and from reason. From the Qur’ān, he cites the verse: “Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth capable of creating the like of them [i.e. human beings]? Of course!” (36:81) This verse shows Allāh can create an equal or a like of each human being, which of course includes the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).[46]

From a rational point of view, if ever something is mumkin  (intrinsically possible), then its equal is also intrinsically possible. In terms of the basic nature (māhiya) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his characteristics of perfection, there is no intrinsic impossibility of a likeness or equal being created.[47]

Shāh Ismā‘īl also offers several responses to the point that the Prophet is “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, and thus cannot have an equal. One response he offers is that it is in Allāh’s power to create a realm of existence that is not linearly connected in time with this realm, where the equal will also be a final prophet. Thus, it is not beyond the realm of conceivability and thus possibility that an equal of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could be created. Thus, it is intrinsically possible though extrinsically impossible.[48]

It is not the case, as Asrar Rashid tries to make out, that the scholars in general refuted Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd. A close friend of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī, Muftī Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dehlawī (1790 – 1868) [who was a teacher of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī], rivalled Allāmah Faḍl al-Haqq in his expertise of the rational sciences, having studied with Mawlānā Faḍl al-Imām Khayrābādī (Allāmah Fadl al-Ḥaqq’s father) also. He approved of Taqwiyat al-Īmān[49] and disapproved of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq’s refutations, as reported by one of his students, Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (1832 – 1890).[50]

Later, Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī wrote a more detailed refutation called Taḥqīq al-Fatwā. Sayyid Ḥaydar ‘Alī Tonkī (1788 – 1856), an expert in philosophy and logic, refuted it in a work called al-Kalām al-Fāḍil al-Kabīr ‘alā Ahl al-Takfīr.[51] Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān comments: “The reality is that the truth in these debates are in the hand of Sayyid [Ḥaydar ‘Alī Tonkī], not Shaykh [Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī], as evident to one who refers to their books with objectivity, and I have seen most of them.”[52]

A non-partisan scholar from a slightly later era, Pīr Mehr ‘Alī Shāh (1859 – 1937), was asked about this debate. Before offering his opinion, he said:

My aim here is to present what is in my mind on the possibility or impossibility of an equal to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), not to deem either of the two groups, Ismā‘īliyya or Khāyrābādiyya, correct or incorrect. May Allāh repay their efforts. The writer of these lines regards both of them to be rewarded.[53]

Was there a Verbal Debate Between Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī and Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd?

Asrar Rashid goes onto say:

By the way he debated Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) in the Grand Masjid of Delhi also and Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq silenced him.

Mawlānā Nur al-Ḥasan Kāndhlawī shows that this too is a myth. Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī and Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd only engaged in a written debate, not a verbal one. Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī first wrote a response in 1826, after Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd had already left Delhi for Jihād against the Sikhs. They did not debate before this.[54]

Historical Narrative: Reconstructing ‘Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī as an Anti-British Revolutionary

Asrar Rashid continues:

But afterwards Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥmatullāh ‘alayhi) took part in al-thawrat al-hindiyya, the Indian revolution. This was a revolt against the British colonialists. In which year? In the year 1857. Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) was one of the leading proponents of revolt against the British. Now when people rewrite history what they do is that they attempt to change the facts. One example of this is the university known as Nadwat al-‘Ulamā’. This place, Nadwa, when one of the scholars known as ‘Abdul Ḥayy, not to be confused with Abul Ḥasanāt ‘Abdul Ḥayy Laknawī…the father of Abul Ḥasan al-Nadwī, he wrote a book called Nuzhat al-Khawāir. In that book, when writing the biography of Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā), he states: “He only revolted against the British because the British stopped paying him.” This is what you call a rewriting of history….But Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) was a sincere scholar who was then martyred by the British in 1861 on the Andaman island. They hung him, raḥimahullāh ta‘ālā.

This entire account is very problematic. To start with, Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī died a natural death after being imprisoned on the Andaman Islands. He was not hanged. Siddīq Hasan Khān, who was a contemporary of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī and saw him, says simply that “he died” on the island.[55] Other biographies mention the same. Can Asrar Rashid prove that Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī was executed by the British and not just imprisoned on the island?

The assertion that Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir reports that Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī revolted against the British because of not being given payment also seems to be outright fabrication. One can read through the short biography of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī in Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir, and find nothing of the sort.[56] In fact,Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir doesn’t even say he revolted against the British! It just says “he was accused of rebelling against the English government…”[57] This description – that his involvement in the rebellion was merely an unproven allegation – seems to be more accurate.

The contemporary German professor, Jamal Malik, has written a reliable sketch of the life of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī, pieced together from the latter’s letters, notes and unpublished books.[58] Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī was an employee of the British whom he served from around 1815. He, however, was not fond of the arrogance and rudeness of the British. Thus, in 1831, he quit his service. But just before the outbreak in 1857, he resumed his service, and served in a high British administrative position in Lucknow.

On his alleged involvement in the 1857 rebellion, Jamal Malik says: “[A]part from the claims of his followers, there is no definitive evidence about the extent of Khairabadi’s alleged involvement in subversive activities, and no such claims could be supported on the basis of the available material, i.e., letters, poems, autobiographical accounts.”[59]

A fatwā was drafted in Delhi and signed by some prominent scholars (possibly, under threat or coercion), including Muftī Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dehlawī (who was mentioned earlier). The fatwā supported revolting against the British if they kill Muslims and appropriate their wealth. At the time the fatwā was signed, Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī was not even in Delhi. So, it appears he did not sign the fatwā.

One of the leaders of the rebellion of 1857 was a Mīr Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Shahājānpūrī who shared the same name as Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī. Mistaking the latter for the former seems to have been the reason he was imprisoned. Descendants of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī report that he appealed his sentence, and was even meant to be released, but died shortly before the release date.[60] Jamal Malik concludes: “Whether Fadl-e -Haqq took active part in the revolt or not is still a matter of debate. In fact, his autobiographical notes and poems permit no such conclusion.”[61] He further says: “In the case of Khairabadi, one may suspect a judicial error on the part of the British administration. This is more likely, since there had been a namesake (Sayyid Fadl-e Haqq Shahjahanpuri) active in 1857. This error would provide evidence of the profound ignorance or even vindictiveness of the British.”[62]

Hence, Asrar Rashid’s attempt at rebranding Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī as a leading proponent of the 1857 revolution is of course a stretch. He was a fiery theologian and British employee, never proven to have rebelled. It is obvious the only reason Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī is rebranded in this way is to portray him in a positive light vis a vis his theological opponent Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd.

Māwlānā Qāsim Nānotwī

Asrar Rashid further says:

At that point was the inception of a Dārul ‘Ulūm, a university, in fact two notorious universities, one is in Aligarh…and another one which is known as Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband…Imām Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) was unrivalled in ‘Ilmul Kalām, in defending the creed of Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah, but especially after the period of 1870. Why 1870? Because one of the founders of Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband whose name was Qāsim Nānotwi, he wrote a notorious book known as Tadhīrun Nās. Tadhīrun Nās caused a storm in India also. And in fact one of those scholars who refuted Tahdhirun Nās is ‘Abdul Ḥayy al-Laknawi Abul Ḥasanat who passed away in 1304. But the strange thing is when you read Nuzhat al-Khawāir of ‘Abdul Ḥayy, the other ‘Abdul Ḥayy, when they give the biography of ‘Abdul Ḥayy al-Laknawī, they do not mention any of this. These things are blotted out. But the works are available.

This account is either very misleading or downright falsehood. Asrar Rashid makes it appear that ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawi (1848 – 1886) wrote a refutation of Taḥdhīr al-Nās (and thus this should have been mentioned in his biography in Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir), while this is not the case.

The reality is that there was a debate between Māwlānā Qāsim Nānotwī (1833 – 1880) and Māwlānā Muḥammad Shāh Punjābī on the contents of Taḥdhīr al-Nās. The arguments of both sides were then presented to some ‘ulamā’, who favoured the view of Māwlānā Muḥammad Shāh Punjābī. This was then published as Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah.

The disagreement was over the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. The general understanding is it means simply “the last prophet”, but Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī believed its primary meaning is that all characters of prophethood culminate and terminate at the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him), and that his prophethood was granted directly by Allāh while the prophethood of all other Prophets was attained via the intermediary of his prophethood. This, he said, is the primary meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”. He, however, did not believe this to contradict chronological finality, and in fact includes chronological finality in his meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn” either by extension or implication.[63] The signatories of Ibṭāl Aghlāṭ Qāsimiyyah  considered Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s interpretation to be incorrect, not disbelief. ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawi was one of these signatories.

The real cause of sectarianism in this affair, however, was unjustified takfirTakfīr  on this subject was initiated by Mawlānā Naqī ‘Alī Khān (1830 – 1880), the father of Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921)[64], and then followed by Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself. The latter claimed that Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī denied the finality of prophethood – which is a clear error. In the very work Taḥdhīr al-Nās, Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī declared belief in chronological finality as being from the absolute essentials of religion denying which is kufr. He writes:

Therefore, if [sealship] is absolute and general, then the establishment of chronological finality is obvious. Otherwise, accepting the necessity of chronological finality by implicative indication is immediately established. Here, the explicit statements of the Prophet, like: ‘You are to me at the level of Hārūn to Mūsā, but there is no prophet after me,’ or as he said, which apparently is derived from the phrase ‘Khātam al-Nabiyyīn’ in the manner mentioned earlier, are sufficient on this subject, because it reaches the level of tawātur. Furthermore, consensus (ijma‘) has been reached on this.

Although the aforementioned words were not transmitted by mutawātir chains, but despite this lack of tawātur in the words, there is tawātur in the meaning just like the tawātur of the number of rak‘āt of the obligatory prayers, the witr prayer etc. Although the words of the narrations stating the number of rak‘āt are not mutawātir, just as the one who denies that is a kāfir, in the same way, the one who denies this is a kāfir.[65]

Thus, even some scholars affiliated to Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (and who would not be partisan to Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwi) have also acknowledged that Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī does not deny the essential belief of Islām on the chronological finality of prophethood. One such eminent scholar, Pir Karam Shah Azhari (1918 – 1998), says:

I do not think it correct to say that Mawlānā Nānotwī (may Allah have mercy on him) denied the belief in the finality of prophethood, because these passages (of Tahdhīr al-Nās), by way of the clear meaning of the text and its indication, show without doubt that Mawlānā Nānotwī (may Allah have mercy on him) had certainty that chronological finality of prophethood is from the necessities of religion, and he regarded its evidences as categorical and mutawātir. He has stated this matter explicitly, that the one who denies chronological finality of prophethood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is a kāfir and outside the fold of Islam.[66]

Notice, he says “without doubt” Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī had certainty in the chronological finality of prophethood and that it is from the necessities of religion. This is in contrast to Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s definitive verdict of kufr on Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī precisely for denying the chronological finality of prophethood.

Another prominent scholar from Pakistan unaffiliated with the school of Deoband, Khwājah Qamar al-Dīn Siyālwī (1906 – 1981), said:

I have seen Taḥdhīr al-Nās. I regard Mawlānā Qāsim Ṣāḥib Nānotwī to be a Muslim of the highest degree. I take pride in the fact that his name is found in my chain of ḥadīth. In elaborating the meaning of ‘Khātam al-Nabiyyīn’, the mind of objectors did not understand the depth to which Mawlānā’s mind reached. A hypothetical proposition was treated as a factual one.[67]

In short, while Mawlānā Nānotwī offers a less common interpretation of the term “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, his interpretation does not violate any established belief of Islām, least of all the chronological finality of the prophethood of Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and that prophethood terminated at him. Even amongst those who are from the same school as Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, some have conceded that there can be legitimate disagreement with him on this subject[68], but there is no grounds for takfīr. It should be noted that Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, though in a minority, was not unprecedented in his view on the meaning of “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”.[69]

The Seeds of Sectarianism

Asrar Rashid continues:

This theological debate continued until we know that this culminated in Imām Aḥmad Riḍā Khān refuting Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī, Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī, & Khalīl Aḥmad Ambhetwī, as well as one of the founders Qasim Nanotwi…

It is important to add that Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān did not only “refute” these senior imāms, but made takfīr against them. The takfir of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī was discussed briefly above. The three remaining takfīrs will be discussed in brief below.[70]

Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī

On Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905), Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī claimed that he wrote a fatwā in which he did not censure the view that lying has actually occurred in Allāh’s speech, and in fact lent support to it. Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān states he has seen this alleged “fatwā” in the handwriting of Mawlānā Gangohī and with his seal. Moreover, he states that the fatwā along with its refutation has been published several times. The reality, however, is that this so-called “fatwā” was circulated only amongst detractors of Mawlānā Gangohī. It is not found in any of his published fatwās, nor is it recognised by any of his students.[71] In fact, in direct contradiction to this alleged “fatwā”, Mawlānā Gangohī explicitly said in his published Fatāwā that the one who believes an actual lie has occurred in Allāh’s speech, or that Allāh is characterised by “false speech”, is a kāfir.[72]

Mawlānā Gangohī himself was unaware of this allegation until the last moments of his life. In the year 1905, Mawlānā Gangohī’s student, Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī (1868 – 1951), became aware of this alleged “fatwā” and the claims being made. He immediately sent a copy to Mawlānā Gangohī and asked for clarification. Mawlānā Gangohī replied: “I had no knowledge of this. This allegation is…an error. Allāh forbid that I can say such!” Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī documents this in his Tazkiyat al-Khawāṭir.[73]

In short, the allegation against Mawlānā Gangohī is based on a fabricated fatwā that he himself denied, that is not known to his students and that contradicts his explicit fatwās.

Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī

On Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927), Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān claimed that he wrote in Barāhīn Qāṭi‘ah that (Allāh forbid!) Shayṭān’s knowledge is superior to the Prophet’s. In Barāhīn Qāṭi‘ah, Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī was responding to another work, Anwār Saṭi‘ah. The author of the latter work apparently argues that since the Shayṭān is known to have extensive knowledge of people’s actions and so on, such knowledge should not be denied for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) given his greater status. Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī responds that knowledge of such things cannot be determined for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) based on analogies of this nature.[74]

As can be seen, the discussion is about a specific type of knowledge. This is absolutely clear from the context and from explicit passages of Barāhīn Qāṭi‘ah. Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī is not stating (as suggested by Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān) that Shayṭān possesses greater knowledge than the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in a general and absolute sense. But, in matters that are not the basis of excellence or virtue in knowledge, Shayṭān may be aware of certain aspects of them that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not aware of. For example, Shayṭān may be aware that a certain person has robbed a bank including the means and techniques by which he accomplished this, while this knowledge was not given to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); this in no way means Shayṭān is superior in knowledge to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

As he clarifies in a later work called al-Muhannad, Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī states that excellence in knowledge is based on greater knowledge of Allāh, His Dīn and the outer and inner aspects of Sharī‘ah. No one equals the rank of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in such knowledge. In things that are not the basis of virtue or excellence in knowledge, however, there is nothing surprising in another knowing something that is unknown to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). [75]

Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī

On Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943), Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān claimed that he wrote in his Ḥifẓ al-Īmān that (Allāh forbid!) madmen, children and animals possess knowledge of the unseen equal to that of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This too is far from what Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī actually said. In Ḥifẓ al-Īmān, he was discussing the question of using the title “‘Ᾱlim al-Ghayb” (knower of the unseen) for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He firstly explains that this is a technical term in Sharī‘ah which means a being that possesses knowledge of unseen realities without the need for any means or instrument. Such a characteristic is of course exclusive to Allāh, because everyone apart from Allāh acquires knowledge of unseen realities only via a means and instrument.

He then explains that “unseen” (ghayb) can refer to things that are hidden from the senses in a general sense, whether acquired by a means or not. But even with this interpretation, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) should not be called “‘Ᾱlim al-Ghayb”. He reasons that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of course does not possess knowledge of all unseen realities, while the quality of possessing knowledge of some unseen realities is not exclusive to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Possessing knowledge of some unseen realities is something found in Zayd and ‘Amr, children, madmen and animals, because they all possess knowledge of some things hidden to others – does this now mean that they are all to be called “‘Ᾱlim al-Ghayb”?![76]

As can be seen, Mawlānā Thānawī does not state that “madmen, children and animals possess knowledge of the unseen equal to that of the Prophet” as was alleged. Rather, he simply states that they possessed knowledge of some unseen realities; and thus the mere possession of knowledge of some unseen realities is not exclusive to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

When Mawlānā Thānawī was asked about the passage of Ḥifẓ al-Īmān and if he had ever written that “madmen, children and animals possess knowledge of the unseen equal to that of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)”, he replied: “I did not write this revolting content in any book. Let alone writing it, this thought never crossed my heart. Nor is it the necessary conclusion of any passage of mine, as I will explain later. Since I understand this content to be revolting…how can it be my intent? That person who believes this, or without belief utters it explicitly or implicitly, I believe this person to be outside the fold of Islam because he has denied decisive texts and lessened the Revered Joy and Pride of the World, the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him peace.”[77]

Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān nonetheless declared Mawlānā Thānawī a disbeliever on this account. In fact, he went as far as to say if anyone doubts the disbelief of these individuals, he is a disbeliever himself![78]

Testimony of Non-Partisan ‘Ulamā’

Those who do not have a stake in this conflict have also regarded the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband highly. One of the great spiritual masters of the era was Shaykh Faḍl al-Raḥmān Ganjmurādābādī (1794 – 1895) with whom several early scholars of Deoband were connected, including Muftī ‘Azīz al-Raḥmān Deobandī (1859 – 1928), Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī and Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī. His khalīfah (Shāh Tajammul Ḥusayn Bihārī) mentioned that Shaykh Faḍl al-Raḥmān Ganjmurādābādī held Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī and Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī in high regard, believing them to be from the Awliyā’.[79] The testimony of other non-partisan ‘ulamā’ and Ṣufīs have been collected by Sayyid Nafīs al-Ḥusaynī (1933 – 2008) in his Ḥikāyāt Mehr o Wafā: Buzurgāne Deoband Apne Ham‘aṣr ‘Ulamā’ wa Maskā’ikh Kī Naẓr Mein.


Asrar Rashid paints Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd as a violent zealot who abandoned the Sunnī methodology of his forefathers, came under the tutelage of Wahhābī missionaries, and wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān under the influence of foreign Wahhābī ideology. As shown above, this entire narrative is false.

Asrar Rashid paints Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī as an upright scholar who supported the 1857 revolution against the British, while this narrative too is deeply flawed. Further, Asrar Rashid puts the blame of “sectarianism” wholly at the hands of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and those Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī opposed, completely ignoring the takfīr which fanned the flames of disunity amongst the Sunnīs of the Indian Subcontinent.

Asrar Rashid’s partisanship and sectarian bias towards (mis)readings of history and theology is undeniable. His claims to being objective and unbiased are just that: claims, with no truth to them. It is strange that a lecture on the history of sectarianism would contain so many inaccuracies, and hence peddle a narrative that is more fictitious than factual. What is also evident is the sheer irony of claiming to be objective whilst regurgitating calamitous takfīr-steeped rhetoric, a clear indication that Asrar Rashid is merely repackaging old arguments in a more palatable way.

Objectivity on this issue demands, as a fundamental prerequisite, that unsubstantiated assumptions which lead to unjustified takfīr  be clearly rejected. Giving new life to these old arguments is the cause of sectarianism, not its cure, and the obsession with creating distrust of a whole community of subcontinent Sunnī scholarship only serves to fuel divisive, sectarian sentiments that are both unwanted and unnecessary.

If Asrar Rashid has a change of heart and decides to sincerely challenge his false/misleading claims, assumptions and narratives based on the above evidences (much of which have been available online for years), this would be a welcome change, and in the spirit of objectivity, it would be hoped he casts aside the sectarian takfīrī rhetoric and truly embraces the wider Sunnī family.


[1] “History of Sectarianism: Wahabi, Deobandi, Qadiyani, Khilafat Movement”

[2] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21. A PDF is available.

[3] Ibid. p. 22

[4] Ibid. p. 98

[5] Ibid. p. 102

[6] Ibid. p. 105

[7] Sīrat Sayyid Aḥmad, 1:353

[8] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 22

[9] “The Deobandi-Barelawi Paradigm Shift and Lateral Thinking”

[10] Ibid. p. 105

[11] This is a slip of the tongue. He meant to say “1779”.

[12] This is also a slip of the tongue. He meant to say “1792”.

[13] Islamic Reform and Revival in Nineteenth Century India, Yoda Press, p. 39

[14] Naqsh e Ḥayāt, p. 431-2

[15]  Sīrat e Sayyid Aḥmad, 1:342-365

[16] Taqwiyat al-Īmān, Qasid Kitab Ghar, p. 82

[17] A PDF of which is available

[18] ‘Abaqāt, p. 174:

قد وقع بين كل فن تفرق واختلاف، وهو على نحوين، تفرق بين المبطلين والمحقين كالتفرق بين فقهاء الشيعة و أهل السنة والأشاعرة والمعتزلة  أو الوجودية الملاحدة والوجودية العرفاء أو بين من يستعين في مراقاباته بالخمور والمسكرات  وبين من يستعين فيها بالأذكار والصلاة أو بين من يعالج عجب القلب بترك شعائر الشرع وبين من يعالجه بملاحظة المعاصي أو القصور فى الطاعات وهكذا فقس، فالحكم في مثل هذا التفرق وجوب تصويب أحد الجانبين وتخطئة الآخر كذلك، وتفرق بين أهل الحق كالتفرق بين الأئمة الأربعة أو بين الأشعرية والماتريدية أو بين الوجودية الورائية والشهودية الظلية أو بين أهل الطرق، فالحكم فيه أن كل واحد منهم في أكثر المسائل على طريق حق، ولكل واحد هو موليها فاستبقوا الخيرات، فمن اتبع واحدا منهم فاز بالمقصود

[19] Yak Rozah, p. 2

[20] ‘Abaqāt, p. 3

[21] Ibid.

[22] Al-Ḥiṭṭah fi l-Ṣiḥāḥ al-Sittah, Dār al-Jīl, p. 258

[23] See:

[24] It is based on a misreading of a passage from Īḍāḥ al-Ḥaqq al-Ṣarīḥ

[25] ‘Abaqāt, p. 35, 102

[26] Mathnawī Silk e Nūr; quoted in Shāh Ismā‘īl Muḥaddith al-Dehlawī , p. 132

[27] Naqsh e Ḥayāt, p. 432

[28] See: Naqd al-Ru’yat al-Wahhābiyyah li l-Tawḥīd by ‘Uthmān Nābulūsī

[29] Radd al-Ishrāk, p. 15-6:


اعلم أن الإشراك – الذي أنزل الكتب الإلهية لإبطاله وبعث الأنبياء لمحقه – ليس مقصورا على أن يعتقد أحد أن معبوده مماثل للرب تبارك وتعالى في وجوب الوجود، أو إحاطة العلم بجميع الكائنات، أو الخالقية لأصول العوالم كالسماء والأرض، أو التصرف في جميع الممكنات، فإن هذا الإعتقاد ليس من شأن الإنسان أن يتلوث به، اللهم (إلا) أن كان ممسوخا كفرعون وأمثاله، وليس لأحد أن يذعن بأن الكتب الإلهية إنما نزلت والأنبياء إنما بعثت لأجل إصلاح أمثال هؤلاء الممسوخين فقط، كيف ومشركوا العرب الذين سماهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمشركين وقاتلهم وأراق دماءهم وسبى ذراريهم ونهب أموالهم لم يكونوا مذعنين بهذا الإعتقاد، بدليل قوله تعالى: ((قل من بيده ملكوت كل شيء وهو يجير ولا يجار عليه إن كنتم تعلمون، سيقولون: الله، فل: فأنى تسحرون؟)) وأمثال هذه الآية كثيرة جدا. بل معناه أن يشرك أحدا من سوى الله معه تعالى فى الألوهية أو الربوبية. ومعنى الألوهية أن يعتقد في حقه أنه بلغ فى الإتصاف بصفات الكمال من العلم المحيط أو التصرف بمجرد القهر والإرادة مبلغا جل عن المماثلة والمجانسة مع سائر المخلوقين، وذلك بأن يعتقد أنه ما من أمر يحدث سواء كان من الجواهر أو الأعراض فى الأقوال أو الأفعال أو الإعتقاد أو العزائم والإرادات والنيات إلا وهو ممتنع أن يغيب من علمه وهو شاهد عليه أو يعتقد أنه يتصرف فى الأشياء بالقهر أي: ليس تصرفه فى الأشياء من جملة الأسباب بل هو قاهر على الأسباب. ومعنى الربوبية أنه بلغ في رجوع الحوائج واستحلال المشكلات واستدفاع البلايا بمجرد الإرادة والقهر على الأسباب مبلغا استحق به غاية الخضوع والتذلل، أي: ليس للتذلل لديه والخضوع عنده حد محدود، فما من تذلل وخضوع إلا وهو مستحسن بالنسبة إليه وهو مستحق له. فتحقق أن الإشراك على نوعين: إشراك فى العلم وإشراك فى التصرف. ويتفرع منهما: الإشراك فى العبادات، وذلك بأنه إذا اعتقد في أحد أن علمه محيط وتصرفه قاهر فلا بد أنه يتذلل عنده ويفعل لديه أفعال التعظيم والخضوع، ويعظمه تعظيما لا يكون من جنس التعظيمات المتعارفة فيما بين الناس، وهو المسمى بالعبادة. ثم يتفرع عليه: الإشراك فى العادات وذلك بأنه إذا اعتقد أن معبوده عالم بالعلم المحيط متصرف بالتصرف القهري لا جرم أنه يعظمه في أثناء مجارى عاداته بأن يميز ما ينتسب إليه كاسمه وبيته ونذره وأمثال ذلك من سائر الأمور بتعظيم ما. وقد رد الله تعالى في محكم كتابه أولا وعلى لسان نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم ثانيا على جميع أنواع الشرك على أصوله وفروعه وذرائعه وأبوابه ومجمله ومفضله


[30] هذه المقدمة لا غبار عليها، والفرق شاسع جدًأ بين كلامه وكلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب


[32] Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 8

[33] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 88

[34] Al-Ta’līfāt al-Rashīdiyya p.86-8


[36] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 75-9

[37] Ta’līfāt Rashidiyya, p. 90

[38] Imdad al-Fatāwā, Zakariyyā Book Depo, 11:574

[39] Fayḍ al-Bārī, 1:252

[40] Ibid.

[41] Imdad al-Fatāwā, Zakariyyā Book Depo, 11:574

[42] Life Sketch of Syed Ahmed Shahid, p. 23-5

[43] Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 44

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Yak Rozah, p. 2-3

[47] Yak Rozah, p. 4-5

[48] Ibid. p. 10-2

[49] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 35; Mawlānā Nūr al-Ḥasan shows this support is authentic from him

[50] Abjad al-‘Ulūm, 3:254

[51] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 153

[52] Abjad al-‘Ulūm, 3:248

[53] Fatāwā Mehria, p. 11

[54] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 152-3

[55] Abjad al-‘Ulūm, 3:254

[56] Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir, 1063-5

[57] Ibid,

[58] Letters, prison sketches and autobiographical literature; The Indian Economic & Social History Review 03 2006 ; vol. 43, 1 : pp. 77-100. A PDF of this article is available at request.

[59] Ibid. p. 87

[60] P. 88

[61] P. 90

[62] P. 96

[63] See Dr Khalid Maḥmūd’s introduction to Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p.7-29.

[64] For details, see Taḥdhīr al-Nās Eik Taḥqīqī Mutāla‘ah, p. 11-20; unjustified takfir was made earlier on a related issue which was refuted by Sayyid Ḥaydar ‘Alī Tonkī (1788 – 1856) in al-Kalām al-Fāḍil al-Kabīr ‘alā Ahl al-Takfīr.

[65] Taḥdhīr al-Nās, p. 56

[66] Tahdhīr un-Nās Merī Nazar Meh, p. 58

[67] Dhol kī Ᾱwāz; quoted in Ḥikāyāt Mehr o Wafā, p. 40

[68] Taḥdhīr al-Nās Eik Taḥqīqī Mutāla‘ah, p. 27

[69] See: The Decisive Debate, p.86-7; available as a PDF online

[70] For detailed refutations, see the works of Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī, al-Shihāb al-Thāqib of Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madani and Fayṣlah Kun Munāẓarah by Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘māni. The latter has been translated as “The Decisive Debate” and is available as a PDF online.

[71] al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p. 249, 259

[72] Ta’līfāt Rashīdiyyah, p. 96; al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p. 260

[73] Majmū‘ah Rasā’il Chāndpūrī, 1:106

[74] Barāhīn Qāṭi‘ah, p. 55-6

[75] Al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad, Dār al-Fatḥ, p. 71-3

[76] Ḥifẓ al-Īmān, p. 14-5

[77] Basṭ al-Banān; quoted in Fayṣlah Kun Munāẓarah, p.171-2

[78] Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn, p. 64

[79] Kamālāt Raḥmānī; quoted in Ḥikāyāt Mehr o Wafā, p. 5

Clarification on the Theological Disputes between Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd (Rahimahullah) & Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī

Asrar Rashid Barelwi says:

When this work Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written, this work like its counterpart in the Middle East Kitāb al-Tawḥīd caused sectarianism which exists until this day …. At that time a prominent scholar known as Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) refuted the work Taqwiyat al-Īmān. He refuted him on a few theological points. One of those points was that Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī considered it possible for Allāh (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā), the divine power of Allāh (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā), to bring out into existence those things which we would deem as being impossible. If something is impossible, Allāh (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā) He does not will that which is impossible. So, in any given time there could only be one Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, one finality of prophets. The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) who is described in al-Quran al Karīm as Khātam al-Nabiyyīn the finality of prophets, there can only be one finality of prophets in any given time. Imām Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāh) refuted Ismail Dehlawi on this point where he considered it possible for Allah (subḥānahū wa ta‘ālā) to bring multiple prophets like our Messenger (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Why is this considered from the realm of impossibility? One reason being there can only ever be one Khātam al-Nabiyyīn finality of prophets… Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (raḥimahullāhu ta‘ālā) wrote Taḥqīq al-Fatwā, he wrote Imtinā‘ al-Naẓīr refuting the ideology of Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī. And numerous other ‘ulamā’ also wrote refutations against Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī at that time.  

Response (by Maulana Zameelur Rahman):

Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī (1797 – 1861), wrote a brief refutation of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in 1826, to which the latter wrote a response called Yak Rozah. The debate occurred in response to a sentence of Taqwiyat al-Īmān. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was discussing a mistaken conception of shafā‘ah (intercession), called “shafā‘ah al-wajāhah” (intercession of status), in which it is believed that Allāh suppresses His original intent to punish one deserving of punishment because someone holding a high status intercedes, and He does not wish to cause disruption in His Kingdom on account of displeasing the intercessor. As Shāh Ismā‘īl explains, one who holds such a belief is a “true mushrik and a complete ignoramus, and has not understood the meaning of divinity in the slightest, and has not realised the greatness of this Owner of the Kingdom.”[1] Then, explaining the power and greatness of Allāh, he said: “It is the nature of this King of Kings that in a single moment, had He so wished with one command of ‘Kun’, He would create thousands of prophets, saints, jinn and angels equal to Jibra’īl, upon him peace, and Muḥammad, Allāh bless him and grant him peace; and would turn the whole universe from the throne to the earth upside down and put another creation in its place.”[2] He goes onto say that if all creatures were like Jibra’īl and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this would not increase in the lustre of Allāh’s kingdom, and similarly if all creatures were devils and dajjals this would not decrease from the lustre of His Kingdom.[3]

In context, Shāh Ismā‘īl’s statement is justifiable, given that he was trying to drive home the point to readers (who would entertain the belief in “shafā‘ah al-wajāhah”) that Allāh has no need for His creation and does not depend on them in the slightest. But Allāmah Faḍl al-Haqq Khayrābādī picked up on a technical point, claiming that it is intrinsically impossible for there to be an equal (mithl/naẓīr) to Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him), so the scenario Shāh Ismā‘īl presented was not even hypothetically possible.

In Yak Roza, Shāh Ismā‘īl wrote a response. He explains that for an equal to come into existence is included within Divine Power but its materialisation is impossible. He presents evidence from the Qur’ān and from reason. From the Qur’ān, he cites the verse: “Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth capable of creating the like of them [i.e. human beings]? Of course!” (36:81) This verse shows Allāh can create an equal or a like of each human being, which of course includes the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).[4]

From a rational point of view, if ever something is mumkin  (intrinsically possible), then its equal is also intrinsically possible. In terms of the basic nature (māhiya) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his characteristics of perfection, there is no intrinsic impossibility of a likeness or equal being created.[5]

Shāh Ismā‘īl also offers several responses to the point that the Prophet is “Khātam al-Nabiyyīn”, and thus cannot have an equal. One response he offers is that it is in Allāh’s power to create a realm of existence that is not linearly connected in time with this realm, where the equal will also be a final prophet. Thus, it is not beyond the realm of conceivability and thus possibility that an equal of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could be created. Thus, it is intrinsically possible though extrinsically impossible.[6]

It is not the case, as Asrar Rashid tries to make out, that the scholars in general refuted Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd. A close friend of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī, Muftī Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Dehlawī (1790 – 1868) [who was a teacher of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī], rivalled Allāmah Faḍl al-Haqq in his expertise of the rational sciences, having studied with Mawlānā Faḍl al-Imām Khayrābādī (Allāmah Fadl al-Ḥaqq’s father) also. He approved of Taqwiyat al-Īmān[7] and disapproved of Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq’s refutations, as reported by one of his students, Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (1832 – 1890).[8]

Later, Allāmah Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī wrote a more detailed refutation called Taḥqīq al-Fatwā. Sayyid Ḥaydar ‘Alī Tonkī (1788 – 1856), an expert in philosophy and logic, refuted it in a work called al-Kalām al-Fāḍil al-Kabīr ‘alā Ahl al-Takfīr.[9] Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān comments: “The reality is that the truth in these debates are in the hand of Sayyid [Ḥaydar ‘Alī Tonkī], not Shaykh [Faḍl al-Ḥaqq Khayrābādī], as evident to one who refers to their books with objectivity, and I have seen most of them.”[10]

A non-partisan scholar from a slightly later era, Pīr Mehr ‘Alī Shāh (1859 – 1937), was asked about this debate. Before offering his opinion, he said:

My aim here is to present what is in my mind on the possibility or impossibility of an equal to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), not to deem either of the two groups, Ismā‘īliyya or Khāyrābādiyya, correct or incorrect. May Allāh repay their efforts. The writer of these lines regards both of them to be rewarded.[53]


[43] Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 44

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Yak Rozah, p. 2-3

[47] Yak Rozah, p. 4-5

[48] Ibid. p. 10-2

[49] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 35; Mawlānā Nūr al-Ḥasan shows this support is authentic from him

[50] Abjad al-‘Ulūm, 3:254

[51] Majallah Aḥwāl wa Ᾱthār, no. 20-21, p. 153

[52] Abjad al-‘Ulūm, 3:248

[53] Fatāwā Mehria, p. 11

Atheism: The Irrational Doctrine

Twenty evidence of the fact that Atheism is the worst doctrine on earth .. !!

1 – Atheism violates the first law of Newton.
The first law of Newton says that “an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in steady motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force (static or dynamic).” So there must be an external force that made the Big Bang to happen at that very moment and forced the universe to begin at that very moment.

2 – Atheism violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Law of Conservation of energy or what is known as the first law of thermodynamics says ((matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.)) If we contemplate in this law, we come to conclusion that the universe cannot exist. According to this law, the universe does not exist or it’s present in the presence of the Creator.

3 – Atheism violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamic says that the universe is now heading towards thermal death when the temperature of all organisms and particles becomes equal. So the universe as scientists say is heading toward disintegration, towards demolition, towards cooling and towards thermal death “thermal death of universe”, while atheism says that the universe is moving towards complexity and towards building a struggle to develop. So scholars consider the second law of thermodynamics to carry the end of Darwinism and selective evolution. And these are laws, not theories.. so the science on the side while atheism and Darwinism are completely on the other side.

4 – Atheism is contrary to the Code of Ethics.
The original definition of morality: – Morals are those that come against self-interest .. against matter .. against reason
Moral obligation is a restriction of the human being and as Nietzsche said long ago: – The lack of power in human being is because of his ethical commitment.

So morals are not profitable practically .. there must be a value for ethics and this value is not of this world .. a value that is not measured by abstract materialistic standards and not subject to natural laws .. ethical behavior, sacrifice, supreme ideals, asceticism and altruism are the inherent morality either are meaningless or has a meaning in the presence of God…

5 – Atheism does not find an explanation to the law of pairs.
The secret of the wisdom of the repeated mentioning of the two sexes, male and female in the Qur’an: “And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful” [SURAH ADH-DHARIYAT-49]. “And that He created pairs, the male and the female” [SURAH AN-NAJM 45]. The contemporary philosopher Henri Bergson said that the repeated mentioning of the pairs is not intended for gratitude, but also meant something greater which is to alert that pairing is in plants, animals and even particles and which is a great evidence of the purpose and the denial of the chance, moronic Darwinism, randomness and senselessness.

6 – Material atheism is in contradiction with the immaterial self.
If a human being committed a crime and insisted that he did it unconsciously, each lawyer seeks to prove there was no intent, but from the material perspective, the crime took place and ended up on the reality and the offender is also admitting that he’s the perpetrator, but the law interferes to know the purpose, intent and self-condition during the commission of the crime and whether the crime took place unconsciously or not .. Here, we put self in position higher than facts and higher than abstract materialistic reality.. In reality, we do not really judge what happened in the world, but to judge what has occurred within the self .. This reflects the contradiction in principles between man and the world.

7 – Atheism is contrary to the laws of human rights.
Human rights is metaphysical pure issue and your saying that human beings are equal this is possible only if the human is a creature of God, so equality between human beings is exclusively ethical, not a natural, materialistic or mental fact, since people from the materialistic, natural or mental perspective are undoubtedly unequal and based only on religion, the weak can claim equality.

Those who are weak and poor in money, health and mind and excluded from the tables of the celebrations in the world, those who do not have anything to show or to prove about except through religion only, by which they demonstrate that they are equal to them or even better towards God than the wealthy, and this is where lies the frequent proof of the value of religion in equality.

8 – Atheism violates the privacy of all, since it does not recognize the sanctity and holiness.
No value to bunch of virtues that have been established by religions in the last tens of thousands of years. As Dr. Missiri says: – the atheist sees the ground as an exploited matter and his purpose is to achieve maximum satisfaction of it or as the thinker John Locke says: – If all hopes of human is limited to this world and if we enjoy life here in this world, it is not surprising nor illogical to look for happiness, even at the expense of parents and children.

So the ideas of impurity, holiness, chastity and purity are ideas derived from another world have nothing to do with the materialistic, Darwinian, imperative, cold world… If we were really the sons of this world, it will not seem to us as it has something dirty or sacred…

9 – Atheism is contrary to the law of cause and effect.
Of nothing comes nothing… there is no effect without a cause .. this common sense is erected in the mind because it is higher than the law and on it stands the modern science and goals’ purpose.

Descartes says: “I exist so who made me exist and who created me? I have not created myself. It has to be my Creator.” This Creator must exist and does not lack a creator and He should be named with all the attributes of perfection: “Or were they created without there being anything, or are they the creators?” [Surah at-Tur: 35] .. and it does not occur to us to deny this common sense because of the pretext that the mental delusion of the sequence of reasons to no end and it is mentally false or because of the pretext of our ignorance but it is the cause and the law of causality that is not based on observation as atheists claims since our senses just shows the pictures of the disjointed and sequenced phenomena and does not show us the relationship with the causality, so how can we know this relationship only if the mind has innate organized laws – the talk of Descartes – which with it, the human being can realize the sense of and then make new constructed judgments that does not depend on the senses

10 – Atheism contradicts the law of intent and care.
All assets on the ground fits to the human existence and operates accordingly to him, so it is not surprising to say that everything around us is subjected to our requirements of day and night, four seasons, space, surrounding air molecules and how all that situated to the human nature and his needs, and it is not unrealistic to the fact that we say that this harmony in the universe is designed specifically for the production of the human race and as our brother Majdi says: “By washing your hands, thousands of bacteria die, since Man is the fixed component in the world history, his spirit value and moral values will remain unchanged, so the human being was and will remain as human being from thousand years ago born by the past to thousand years later born by the future, neither his nature nor his intent will change.”

11 – Atheism is contrary to teleology.
Science is in constant progress … all scientists’ researches based on the existence of laws governing the world and controlling the matter .. the purpose of science in every search is to find the law governing this case since the science is teleological and therefore it is in constant progress .. and without the science adoption already of a law that governs all things for this progress, the science would not progress one step .. and here lies the contradiction in principle between messy atheism and teleological science.. and it is not imaginable that everything around us is governed by the law of teleology and the human is the only being responsible in this case.

12 – Atheism contradicts the law of consistency previous to consolidation.
Says Leibniz:- “the atoms are moving with God’s will and work ability that shows how they relate to each other, However, they are not really related, but the power of God to make each atom goes in motion that harmonizes the motion of other atoms, so what seems to us of this harmony is the impact of the law of “consistency previous consolidation” since the matter does not discern the laws applied on it. And there is no rational must to oblige the water to boil at one hundred degrees Celsius or its molecules to diverge with boiling, and as Hume says: – a science that explains that with former interpretations is very immature science since it does not do more than adopting the situation but without giving any reasons. And it’s unavoidable but to admit of the law of “consistency previous consolidation”

13 – Atheism violates the principle of the famous Barclay.
Says Hume:- no evidence obliges us to believe that there is something If our senses missed it and no evidence compels us to believe that the thing we saw today and then we left and we go back to see it in the second day is the same thing we saw on the first day, since we do not know about the outside world except of we what have in our mind from sensory perceptions, and the mind obliges that there must be a holistic mind that absorbs all things and be a witness by it, and as God says:- “Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” [SURAH FUSSILAT – 53]

14 – Atheism is the founder of most criminal doctrines on the Earth.
Se Gore says: – The Darwinism doctrine is one of the despicable doctrines that are not supported except by the worst tendencies and contemptible feelings, since its father is infidelity and its mother is dirtiness.

Nazism was formed only on the discrimination of races and ethnicitiy.

Mao Zedong the atheist thug said: – All the lower animals will be executed and all who stood against the revolution is an evolutionary error, and said in a December 9, 1958 “mass graves provide a good fertilizer for the land.” As a result, 50 million people was killed in China.

The Atheist Che Guevara said: – “To send men to the firing squad, the juridical validation is not necessary. We must learn how to kill queues of people in a shorter time!!!”

The criminal atheist Lenin said: – “No mercy for the enemies of the nation, but kill, hang and confiscate.”

Marx said: – “We have no pity for you, and we do not ask for your sympathy, when the day will come, we are in practice: conscientious savages.” and Marx justify this criminal terrible approach, saying: – “When people accuse us of cruelty, we wonder how they forgotten the basics of Marxism?”

As a result, 250 million people was killed in one century by horrible Darwinian atheism and this is probably more dead people, more than all the wars from Adam (alayhis salaam) to this day.

15 – Atheism is against art and life.
The existence of another world along with the natural world is the primary source of every religion and art .. and If there was only one world, the art would be impossible. Atheism will never understand the essence of art and nature .. If there is no spirit of man so why we are keen to have the spirit of art?

When the science deals with the man, it looks at it as what is dead and what is not personal, while when an art deals with man, it looks at what is humane and teleological, since art is on a natural collision with the world and with all its sciences, that the silent rebellion and if there is absolutely no support to man with no room for his spirit and his self, then the art is not an area for him and the poets and tragedy writers deludes us and write nonsense that does not make sense.

Art in nature and its recognizing of the existence of another world is carrying revolutionary meanings of blasphemy of materialistic world… and that was understood by the famous French painter de Buffet when he said: – “the essence of art is uncomfortable and useless, it’s against society and the threat of it.” Therefore, the essence of works of art are fully and vaguely obscure, it’s a continuous rebellion on the reality. It is repeated confession of the existence of another world that we do not belong to and we will go to it one day .. confession of human suffering on the ground and its inability to achieve the paradise that lies within his dreams and to search for it .. Art is simply is the fruit of the relationship between the spirit and the truth.

So when you contemplate on deep painting.. When you read a great novel .. the human being feels a strange sense that is mysterious with transcendence and holiness and entering the world of eternity .. Art is exactly as religion, both are recognizing the existence of another world, but art is not a religion but an expression of religion. Art is the illegitimate son of the truth… while religion is the legitimate son of the truth ..

16 – Atheism represents abnormality in the history of civilization.
Atheism is nothing more than an intellectual abnormalities and mental pollution in the history of nations and civilizations, Will Durant says in his book The Story of Civilization:-  “There may be cities without walls, without armies, without plants but there is no city without a temple.”
And The author of the book why we say that God exists says:- “and there one who said that man is guided to God with revelation or without revelation, but with the revelation, it was better and thorough, and some argued that all the worships are revelation from God, but it might be an old revelation that was stained with myths from magicians and fortune-tellers, so the primitive nations sidetracked in their ignorance and God was sending Messengers to purify these beliefs from sidetracking.” And Schmidt and Lang – two of the researchers of the assets of religions – say that the origin of all religions in purpose is the Oneness and the diversity came in the later stages, and it have been discovered that inheritance of Indian American and Indigenous residents of the North America are similar in many decrees to monotheistic religions particularly in terms of punishment and reward and here where lies the argument on people, where they are equal in reason and requesting guidance .. and humans differ in religion, but they agree in what God wants them to do.

Sheikh Nadeem Aljssr said in his book, the story of Faith, p. 35: – It’s more likely that many philosophy of the ancients in Egypt, China and India are the remnants of forgotten history, so the owners of these philosophies were stacked among the philosophers and they might have come from prophets or prophets’ subordinates.

That’s why atheism is abnormal approach that appears in temporary image and quickly disappears and if it‘s beneficial to people, it would’ve stayed on the earth.

17 – Big Bang and the fall of the myth of the stable static universe.
In 1989, NASA had launched the satellite (Cuba) for the detection of cosmic radiation resulted from the Big Bang and compiling information on the radiation and this satellite was able in only 8 minutes just to give a complete picture of the radiation and it is proven that the universe is made and this is what knocked off the atheists in critical embarrassment.

A. S. EDDINGTON says: “Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me”

And DENNIS SCIAMA said that he did not defended the steady-state theory, not because he deemed it valid, but because he wished that it were valid. SCIAMA goes on to say that as evidences began to pile up, he had to admit that the game was over and that the steady-state theory had to be dismissed.. And that he must leave aside the theory of the stable universe and his colleague GEORGE ABEL said that he has no choice but to accept the Big Bang theory.

This prompted the atheist philosopher of the twenty century ANTHONY FLEW to say his famous aphorism: –

“Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus.” .. because the science has proven the idea that were defended by religious books.

18 – What is the mystery behind the bias of modern science towards the Qur’an?
Gustave Le Bon says “Islam is religion of the most appropriate for scientific discovery”, and that’s the reason of the frequent convert to Islam in the scientific community of doctors, researchers and professors.
The wonderful Alija Izetbegovic Say: – Aristotle has wrote three scientific books (in physics in the heavens .. .. in the earth) These three books do not exist today with one sentence that is scientifically valid .. three books from a scientific perspective is equal to zero to ten, while the Qur’an as Maurice Bucaille says in his famous book (the Qur’an, Bible and the Torah in the perspective of modern science): – The truth is I did not find any verse from the Qur’an that is contrary to one scientific fact but the Qur’an already passed the modern science and corrected many of the scientific theories that were prevalent in his day, for example the idea that groundwater was formed through a deep gorge at the bottom of the continents moved underground water from the oceans to the depths of the earth did the Qur’an ratify this scientific myth which was prevalent in that times or said. “Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs” [Surah Zumar 21] ….. The source of groundwater is made up of springs, rain and not from Aristotle gap in the depth of the continent …….. And so on.

19 – Atheism does not give an explanation for anything.
Atheism is not a solution but a confession of a failure in finding a solution and this is the beginning of atheism and the end of it ..
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins says in his book delusion: – “Atheists are like bunch of cats, every cat in different direction..” Every atheist is an independent church and as a Sheikh Moqbel Bin Hadi says “If ten people of falsehood meet, they separate in eleven ideas”, so you do not find two atheist with the same idea combined and this is the misfortune of atheism and its ravages, it is the indisciplined doctrine that does not have a clear explanation of any issue, does not have a value, it is “just a fun game mentality,” as said by Dr. Ahmed Okasha .. Atheism in itself is merely a superficial naive idea that is very lazy on a very deep and serious issue … Atheism is messy, nihilistic and skeptical. As one of the old brothers says:- “Since the science is in continuous progress and since there are laws and fixed facts, the function of science is to look for those laws and facts, therefore, there no existence of Atheism or the messy Agnosticism.”

20 – The return of scientific world to God
The physicist (Frederick Bermham) author of History of Science (Science historian) says: “ present, the scientific community deems the idea of God’s creation of the universe a more respectable idea than ever before for hundreds of years.”
Michael Behe says: “I am compelled to accept the existence of God since the result of all these cumulative efforts to examine the cell. ie: to examine life at the molecular level is a loud shout to the clear sharp design …
And I evidenced that by the return of hundreds of scientists and thinkers in the past few years to God and acknowledged that the cause of atheism is psychological rather than mental aspect.:

The famous astronomer (Fred Hoyle) says in his book Mathematics of evolution page 130: – “ fact, how the very clear scientific theory says that life is collected by a clever mind, however, the person marvels and wonders, why it’s not accepted widely as an intuitive … but most likely it’s psychological reasons rather than scientific.”

and as Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) when he said: “O Allah!, an eye is blinded that doesn’t see You.”

To sum up, Imam Ghazali (rahimahullah) was right when he said: – “We are imagining a mule building the pyramids, but we do not imagine what is assumed by atheists when they deny the Divinity .. and as has been said in the Islamic history: – “The ox knows its master, the donkey knows its owner, but this one does not know …” or, as the Bible in the Psalms of David (Dawud alayhis salaam) says : ”The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. 14-1 .. or as our Lord saus in the Qur’an:- “And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones” [SURAH AL-A’RAF 179]

The Portrait of a Sahaabi

[Taken from Al-Haq Bulletin]

When Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was appointed the Khalifah, the Sahaabi, Saeed Bin Aamir Al-Jumaahi (Radhiyallahu anhu) proffered the following naseehat:

“O Umar, I advise you to fear Allah regarding the people. Do not fear the people in matters relating to Allah. Do not let your words contradict your actions, for the best words are those accompanied by actions. O Umar, direct your attention to the Muslims, those who are near and  far, over whom Allah has placed you. Love for them that which you love for yourself and your family, and dislike for them that which you dislike for yourself and your household. Hasten towards the truth and do not fear criticism when acting for the pleasure of Allah.”

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “Who is able to do that?” Saeed Bin Aamir (Radhiyallahu anhu) replied: ”A man of your calibre, O Umar! The man whom Allah has put in charge over the affairs of the Ummah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The man who does not have anyone between him and Allah, will be able to accomplish this.”

Impressed with this advice, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “O Saeed, I am appointing you the governor over the inhabitants of Homs.” Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “O Umar, I beg you in the Name of Allah! Do not put me to trial in this way.” Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) became angry and said; “Woe to you! You place this burden of Khilaafat upon my neck, and then you turn away from me! By Allah, I shall not leave you.” He then ordered Hadhrat Saeed to accept the governorship of Homs and asked: “Should we not arrange some provision for you?” However, Hadhrat Saeed declined.

After some time, a delegation from Homs visited Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). He asked them to write the names of the poor people in Homs so that he could attend to them. A list of the names was presented to Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). He observed that in the list also appeared the name of Hadhrat Saeed bin Aamir (Radhiyallahu anhu). “Who is Saeed bin Aamir?” asked Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). “He is our governor,” they replied. In surprise, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Is your governor poor?” They responded:

“Yes, By Allah! Many days pass without a fire being lit in his home.” Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) wept. His beard was drenched with his tears. He gave the delegation a thousand gold coins and said: “Convey my salaams to him, and tell him: “Ameerul-Mu’mineen has sent this money for your needs.” 

The delegation presented the bag of gold to their Governor, Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu). When he saw that it was gold-coins, he quivered and   placed it far away from himself, exclaiming: “We belong to Allah and to Him is our return.” His mannerism was as though some   calamity had befallen him. His wife hastened to him. Full of concern she asked: “What has happened, O Saeed? Has the Amirul-Mu’mineen passed away?”

“Something worse has happened,” he replied. “Have the Muslims been defeated in battle?”, his wife asked. Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “It is worse than that.”

“What can possibly be worse than that?” his wife queried. “The world has presented itself to me, seeking to destroy my Hereafter, and the trials have become apparent in my own home,” Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) said. “Remove it (i.e. the world) from here,” his wife said, unaware of the money. “Will you help me do that?” Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked her. “Yes, I will,” she replied. Then Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) distributed the gold coins to the Fuqara and Masaakeen (poor Muslims).

Some time after this incident, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) visited Syria to observe the condition of its inhabitants. The citizens of Homs came to greet him. He asked them: “What is your opinion of your governor?” They complained to him, mentioning four of Hadhrat Saeed acts of which they disapproved. Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) arranged a meeting at which the Governor and the complainants were present. Then he asked: “What are your complaints?”

They said: “He does not attend to us until late in the morning.” “What do you say, O Saeed?”   After pausing for a while, he said; “By Allah! I am reluctant to discuss this, but now it is necessary. My wife does not have a maid, so I wake up early every morning and I knead the dough for my family. After having baked the bread, I make wudhu and go out to the people.”

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked the people: “What is your next complaint against him?” They said: “He does not respond to anybody at night.” “What is your response to this, O Saeed?” Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “I did not want this to be revealed as well. I devote the day for the people and the night for Allah Ta’ala.”

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “What is your next complaint?” They said: “One day in every month, he does not come to the people.” Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “What is the reason for this, O Saeed?” Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu  anhu) responded: “O Amirul-Mu’mineen, I do not have a servant, and I have no clothing besides these that I am wearing. I wash it once every month and wait for it to dry before. Then I go out to the people in the last part of the day.”

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “What is your other complaint?” They replied: “Sometimes, he loses consciousness.” Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “Why is that, O Saeed?” Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) explained: “I had witnessed the killing of Khubaib bin Adi (Radhiyallahu anhu) while I was still a mushrik. I saw how the Quraysh cut off parts of his body while saying to him; “Don’t you wish that Muhammad had been in your place?” He answered; “By Allah, I would not wish to be safe with my wife and children while even a thorn would be pricking Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). By Allah! When I remember that day and how I did not help him, I fear that Allah may not forgive me. I therefore become unconscious.”

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) brimming with gratitude to Allah Ta’ala, exclaimed: “All praises are due to Allah Who has not disappointed me in my opinion of Saeed.” He then sent to Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) one thousand gold coins. When his wife saw it, she said to him; “All praises are due to Allah, Who has enriched us through your service. Buy provisions for us and hire a servant.” He said: “Would you like to know what is better than this?” She asked: “What could be better?” Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) replied; “We return it to Him (i.e. to Allah Ta’ala) Who gave it to us, and we loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan.” (As Allah commands in the Qur’aan Majeed).

“Yes,” she replied. “May you be well rewarded.” Then he distributed all the money to the widows, orphans and the poor.

These were the Sahaabah – these are the Men of Allah whom the Shiahs brand as munaafiqeen and kuffaar, whom they slander with the vilest litany of derogatory and slanderous epithets. These were the Sahaabah on whom the Structure of Islam is reliant.

Muslims should bear in mind this episode of Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) during their daily activities. While it is not suggested that it is Waajib to emulate Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) in exactitude, it is undoubtedly, Waajib to conduct our life in the spirit which underlines the lifestyle of Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu), and the Sahaabah in general. So, when a Muslim develops the nafsaani desire to waste in haraam weddings, haraam souks, haraam functions, haraam sports, wasteful mass mock I’tikaafs, haraam qiraa’t competitions, mock umrahs and the like whilst the Makhlooq of Allah Ta’ala is suffering in grinding poverty, squalor, hardship and jahaalat, then he/she should bring to mind the devotion and sacrifices of Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu). What did he do with 100% of the  gold awarded to him? It is imperative for our life to operate with the Portrait of Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) and the Sahaabah in general silhouetted in the backdrop.


There are salubrious lessons for the Ummah in the lives of the Sahaabah. The story of Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu)  provides us with the following lessons and guidance:


Simplicity in all facets of life is Rasulullah’s command. Noteworthy is the extreme simplicity of the appointment of   the governor by the Khalifah, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu), who ruled half the world at the time. Islam was the dominant world power. There was no parliament of a hundred baboons and donkeys nor any governmental institution to which the Emperor of Islam had to refer to and to submit. He spontaneously appointed Hadhrat Sa-eed as the governor when he was satisfied of his Deeni integrity and ability. And, this was his methodology when appointing and dismissing governors for all the lands conquered by the Sahaabah.

While he did consult on issues with other Sahaabah, the evil element of majority vote did not encumber his rule. His decision was final and binding on the entire Ummah from east to west. It was this one man who had singly appointed the first Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (Radhiyallahu anhu). The boot-licking attempt of the modernists that the Rulers of Islam were appointed by consensus or majority of the Muslimeen is a stupid and baseless canard to please the western kuffaar masters of the zanadaqah.

Islam is extremely simple in all its Departments of life. No department of Islamic life, be it government or the private family, is burdened with the satanic systems of kuffaar democracy, socialism, etc. The Islamic system of government is a holy autocracy which administers the Law of Allah Ta’ala –the Shariah. It is the Law of Allah Azza Wa jal which a pious, benevolent Dictator has to administer. Islam is a divine Dictatorship not a moronic democracy in which scoundrels, drunkards, robbers, crooks, bandits, prostitutes, looters, rapists, morons and all the scum in the population collude to appoint rulers who, once in office, oppress the people, loot the public wealth, mete out injustice and suppress the lawful liberties of the population. All rulers are tyrants and robbers.

The Islamic system is not satanically encumbered with a cabinet of morons to whom the supreme ruler, the Khalifah, is answerable. The Khalifah is in the truest sense of the word, the Khaadim (Servant) of the people, hence Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “The leader of the nation is their servant.” Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had practically portrayed the implementation of this principle. He was not a recluse living in a cave. He ruled the world. All rulers nowadays are followers of Satan. Shaitaan’s law prevails today all over the world, in every country without a single exception.

The simplicity of the governor too is admirable. While his extremely simple lifestyle is not the norm for the Ummah, the spirit of that simplicity has to incumbently infused in our lives. We are required by Allah Ta’ala to abandon our haraam opulent lifestyle which consists of haraam lavish spending and shaitaani waste in all our activities whether these are related to our mundane life or our Deeni life.

Wasteful holidays, mock umrahs, haraam weddings, haraam functions of fisq and fujoor, wasteful and futile molvi conferences, mass mock-i’tikaafs, Musjids of show in which tens of millions of rands are squandered down the drain, palatial mansions of riya, etc., etc. are haraam activities to be abandoned. Such abandonment is the demand of simplicity for us in this age of corruption in close proximity to Qiyaamah. The simplicity for us in this day is to conduct our lives within the confines of the Shariah. Abstain from haraam, futility, mushtabah and waste. This is the simplicity for us in this day.


In Islam, the ruler does not sit in an office squandering time and public finances. He does not sit in an office conjecturing plans for looting the public treasury. His obligation is to be on the streets, in contact with the public to see to and to fulfil their needs. The public has direct access to the governor or even to the Emperor (the Khalifah). This was the style of government of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.


Despite being the governor, Hadhrat Saeed (Radhiyallahu anhu) assisted his wife with the household work. She did not present a word of argument when he gave all the gold to the poor. Her intelligence and piety convinced her of the wonderful rewards awaiting them in Jannat for these slight worldly sacrifices. Again, we say that such an attitude displayed by this Lady who was an epitome of Taqwa, is not expected of today’s women who have devoted their lives to whatsapp gheebat and other kinds of filth, just as their husbands are addicted to facebook porn. At least it is expected of Muslim wives to be contented with whatever provisions the husband is able to offer. If, despite being a man of wealth, the husband acquits himself niggardly, refusing to fulfil the demands of luxuries of his wife, then she should exercise Sabr and express shukr for what Allah Ta’ala has provided for her.

Criticism of al-Albani’s Hadith Grading Method

By Muhaddith Sulayman ‘Alwan

The brother says that a group of people say that the authenticating of al-AlbanI isn’t accurate in comparison to the early scholars. And this is True, whether he authenticated the Hadiths or weakened the Hadiths, because the Usul that he follows in his authenticating and weakening is upon the Usul of the Later scholars, upon the Usul of ibn al-Salah, upon the Usul of al-Hafidh al-Iraqi, upon the Usul of ibn Hajr, he doesn’t follow in his Usui, the Usul of Yahya ibn Sa’d al Qattan, the Usul of ibn Mahdi, the Usul of Imam Ahmad, the Usul of al-Bukhari, Usul of Muslim, or upon the Usul of the early scholars, so he goes along the Usul of the later scholars, not the Usul of the Early scholars, and if those were the means that he goes along, it is considered a weak means, so usually the end result would be inconsiderable. So consequently, he has many things that he authenticates which goes against the Methodology of the early scholars, or he weakens that which has a clear difference to the Methodology of the early scholars, because the differences between the early & the later scholars are many, I’ll mention the most important of those differences to clarify the intent and meaning.

So from among that, al-Tadlees [covering up a break in the chain], whenever al-Tadlees is proven in the Hadlth, then it’s a ‘ila (hidden defect), and there’s no dispute in this, whereas the later scholars consider the “an ‘ana” [i.e. narrates by using the term “an” (from)] of the person described with Tadlees as “Tadlees”, and this hasn’t been stated by any of the early scholars, and al-Albani follows this principle, of the Usul of the later scholars, not the Usul of the early scholars. So he says about the hadith that it has ‘an ‘ana of al-Hassan, it has ‘an ‘ana of Qatadah, there is ‘an ‘ana of Abi Ishaq al-Sabi’i, there is ‘an ‘ana of al-A’mash, there is ‘an ‘ana of ibn Jurayj, there is ‘an ‘ana of ibn al-Zubayr and he defects the Hadiths in this way, he has weakened Hadiths in Muslim upon this way, and none of the early scholars were upon this Manhaj, and it’s not known from any of the Imams that they defected a Hadith by ‘an ‘ana of a Mudallis or the person described with Tadlees, rather the early scholars say “Dalas”, and they do not say “an ‘an”, so if it’s proven that he “Dalas” [cheated], we will defect the Hadith because this is a disconnection, and if he says ‘an ‘an and he didn’t “Dalis”, merely a ‘an ‘ana, this doesn’t affec t[the Hadlth], and this is what the early scholars are upon, and this is from the enormous differences between the early and the later scholars.

The second matter: Ziyadat ul-Thiqah [The addition of a trustworthy narrator].

The Madhab of the Fuqaha’ and Mutakalimeen is that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted in all cases, and many of the later scholars have followed this, so ibn Hajr says in al-Nukhba “and the addition of its narrator is accepted, as long as it doesn’t go against that whom is more authentic” and this is not the Manhaj of the [early] Imams, and he has stipulated the Manhaj of the Early scholars in “Kitab al-Nukat ‘ala kitab ibn al-Salah”, and in that book, he has overlooked/
neglected in determining the Usul of the early Imams in this matter, so some of the later scholars or a group of later scholars as it’s the statement of the Fuqaha’ that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted and this is well-known in the authenticating of the later scholars, “This is an addition of a trustworthy narrator, therefore it’s accepted”. The early scholars do not give the addition an absolute/general ruling, so at times they would accept the addition and sometimes they would reject the addition, and they do not give an absolute/
general ruling.

The third matter: Raising weak Hadiths to Hassan by Shawahid (finding supporting narrations), the early scholars do not expand in that, and among the later scholars, there is severe expansion, that most of their authentications & Hassan grading is when the Hadlth comes from different chains. And that is why the authentications by the later scholars have exceeded 50,000 Hadiths, and this is an exaggeration in the authenticating of Hadiths, and many of that is Munkar, it has no basis to it, the issue is not a Hadith or 2 Hadiths, when the Hadiths reach 5,000 hadiths, 4000 are all Munkar. The early scholars did not call a Hadith “Hassan” by Shawahid except by well known conditions and guidelines as a methodology among them, so from that, they don’t call a Hadith Hassan by Shawahid in the Usul [can’t be the main hadith which Fiqh and rulings are derived from the hadlth] and they do not accept it. And from that, is that they don’t call a Hadith Hassan by Shawahid if it goes against an authentic Hadlth. And from that, is that they don’t call a Hadith Hassan by Shawahid if there’s a liar or a person accused of fabricating or a fault or a Nakarah (discrepancy) in the Isnad(chain).

The fourth matter: Al-Tafarrud (singular narrations), the early scholars would consider the issue of Tafarrud a great concern, and they would sometimes not accept the Hadith of the Mutaffarid even if he was Trustworthy (Thiqah), and usually as a methodology that they had, they would reject the Hadith of the Saduq in the Usul, and this isn’t taken into consideration by the later scholars, and they do not differentiate between what is in the Usul [the main hadith which Fiqh and rulings are derived from the hadith & chapter] and what is in other than the Usul, and by the end result of the inability to apply this methodology, they authenticate many Munkar Hadlth. Because the Hadlth of the Saduq or the Hadith of a Thiqah who doesn’t narrate a lot of Hadlths, and isn’t known by many singular narrations, if he makes Tafarrud in an Asl, then this is a place of dispute, so from that, the hadith that was narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud in his Sunan from the chain of Muhammad ibn ishaq from Abi ‘Ubaydah ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Zam’ah from his father from his mother from Umm Salamah that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“On this day you have been allowed to take off ihram when you have thrown the stones at the jamrahs, that is, everything prohibited during the state of ihram is lawful except intercourse with a woman. If the evening comes before you go round this House (the Ka’bah) you will remain in the sacred state (i.e. ihram), just like the state in which you were before you threw stones at the jamrahs”

And this report is Munkar, it’s not possible to accept the Tafarrud of ibn ishaq in it, and even if the Tafarrud of ibn Ishaq was accepted, it’s not possible to accept the Tafarrud of Abi ‘Ubaydah, and this is a followed principle among the early scholars, that in such a situation, the Tafarrud of the Saduq is not accepted who is not known with precision/accuracy and itqan (firmness/minimal errors) and a person who narrates many Ahadith, and this is merely an example, for the examples are many. The later scholars do not look except at what seems to be apparent of the chain and what ibn Hajr said in al-Taqreeb “Thiqah” or “Saduq” and in the end he says “its chain is authentic”.

And this is the fifth matter; that the later scholars go by the apparent look of the chains, they make hadith authentic based upon this, as for the early scholars, then no. They look at the chain and look at the matn (text), and when they look into the Isnad (chain), they look at several aspects:

The first aspect: The trustworthiness of the narrators.

The second aspect: Al-Sama’ at [Whether the narrators have met], they stress on the Sama’at a lot.

The third aspect: Al-Tafarrud [the narrator is alone in narrating a hadith], they stress on the chain and the Tafarrud.

The fourth aspect: Al-Mukhalafah [The differences between the narrators], they look at this very deeply.

The fifth aspect: al-Ikhtilaf [inconsistencies in who he’s narrating from], they look into it very deeply, sometimes they would rule upon it with Idtirab (shakiness).

The early scholars would consider this a very great concern; they wouldn’t be heedless to any of these aspects.

The sixth matter: The Majhul (unknown) Hadith, the later scholars weaken the Hadith of Majhul al-‘Ayn, or before that, they settled upon categorising Majhul into two types, Majhul Hal [2 people have narrated from him] and Majhul ‘Ayn [1 person has narrated from him].

So they weaken the Hadith of Majhul al-‘Ayn and some of them weaken the Hadith of Majhul al-Hal, and some of them authenticate it, but as for the early scholars, then no. They mention conditions for a man whenever he would be considered Majhul and whenever he wouldn’t be considered Majhul. So if he narrates from a narrator who’s trustworthy many times, who is not known to narrate from the weak narrators, nor from the Unknown, then this would cause his Jahalah [unknownness] to be raised by the one who he narrated from. And they stipulate that his narrator must be consistent and not make Tafarrud in an Asl [Main Hadith of the chapter/Original Version], and that he doesn’t go against the trustworthy narrators, and this isn’t taken into consideration among the later scholars. And it’s narrated from the early scholars that if a narrator narrates from a group of trustworthy narrators, his Jahalah [unknownness] would be raised from him, and by this, they make the issue of Tafarrud as an issue of Mukhalafah.

So these are the differences or some of differences between the Early & the Later scholars, and by applying these principles, your Usul [Foundations] would become upright, and if the Foundation is upright, the branches would follow, and the end result would be stable/good, and by the deficiency of applying these principles, you will destabilize the Usul, and if you’ve destabilized the Usul, shakiness would be found in the branches, giving the poor end result.


By Mujlisul Ulama

Bukhaari and Muslim narrate from Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) that (on his death bed) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “May Allah curse the Yahood and Nasaara, for they make the graves of their Ambiya Musaajid.” She (i.e. Hadhrat Aishah – Radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘He warned against doing as they did.’

Muslim narrated from Abil Hibaaj Al-Asadi that Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said to me: “Should I not send you to do that for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had sent me? Do not leave any image, but destroy it nor any raised grave, but flatten it.”

Muslim narrated from Jaabir (Radhiyallahu anhu) that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that graves be plastered; that (buildings) be built over it (graves), and sitting on it.


Question: The Barelwi bid’atis and Haqqani grave-worshippers claim  that building tombs, plastering and elevating the graves of the Ambiya and the Auliya are not forbidden. In an article on this topic they have provided a range of arguments to justify these practices. Are any of their arguments valid? Please explain in detail for our understanding.

Answer: The arguments of the grave-worshippers portray the shirk which pollutes their brains. There is no validity whatsoever for even one of their stupid and spurious contentions. Let us examine the stupidities of the grave-worshippers:

(1) They claim: “The reason for building a Mazaar is to make the status of the Saint or Prophet apparent or distinct to mankind, for respect towards such great people is actually respect for Islam.”

The status of a Nabi and Wali is apparent and distinct during   their very lifetime and this is perpetuated after their demise by their Teachings.

The elevated status of a Nabi is understood and observed by all Muslims. Such observation was never and is never reliant on elevated graves, plastering graves and erecting mausolea which are  evil practices prohibited by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself. The vast majority of the Ummah does not gain the opportunity of even visiting these abominable structures erected by grave-worshippers. Minus these haraam constructions, respect and honour for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are not diminished by even an iota. And, this is because the honour, love and respect Muslims have in their hearts for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were never reliant on the death and graves of these august Personalities of Islam, but were dependent on their teachings which they delivered to the Ummah from Allah Ta’ala.

The love for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) exudes from the Sunnah which is adopted by his devotees in practical life. Acts of grave-worship and other shirki stupidities enacted at the tombs of the Saints, far from honouring and respecting them, pains their souls and are in flagrant violation of the demand of Imaan. In the Ta’leemaat of the Ambiya and the Auliya there is absolutely no condonation for the avalanche of shirk, fisq and fujoor which are the salient features and practices prevailing at the mazaars of the grave-worshippers.

The mazaars are notorious venues for qabar puja (grave-worship). The stench of Hinduism percolates the very atmosphere and environment of the mazaars. There is absolutely no affinity between Tauheed and a mazaar whose practices are the very antithesis of the Tauheed taught by the Ambiya and the Auliya.

Nowhere in the Qur’aan and Hadith is there any directive for respecting the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Auliya by means of constructing stupid kuffaar and mushrik type tombs and perpetrating acts of grave-worship for which the mazaars are notorious.

On the contrary, on his deathbed, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) invoked la’nat (curse) on the Yahood and Nasaara for constructing tombs and mausolea.

Once Hadhrat Umm-e-Habeebah (Radhiyallahu anha) and Hadhrat Umm-e-Salmah (Radhiyallahu anha) narrated to Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that in Habshah they had seen a church in which were pictures. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commented:

“Verily, when a pious man from them dies, they construct a musjid (mausoleum) over his grave and adorn it with these pictures. They will be the worst of creation by Allah on the Day of Qiyaamah.”  

Thus, the builders of mausolea and mazaars are shiraarul khalq (the worst of creation). It should be understood that apes and pigs are also part of creation. These Qabar Pujaaris who worship the mazaars are worse than even these animals.

(2) Stupidly claiming the existence of tombs in Islam, the grave-worshipper says:

“The First tomb in Islam: Grave of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) is “INSIDE” room of the house of Ayesha (ra).”  

This is a moronic ‘daleel’ for the claim. The Mubaarak Qabr of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inside the room of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) is not a tomb nor a mausoleum. The Sahaabah had never converted the Qabr of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) into a tomb. They did not plaster over the Mubaarak Qabr. To this day it remains unplastered in an enclosure.

Burying inside a room is exclusive for a Nabi, not for a non-Nabi. There is no Shar’i evidence to substantiate the baseless extension of this to a Wali. Furthermore, ‘inside a room’ is not a mazaar. It is also not permissible to bury a Wali inside a room. He has to be buried normally as are all Muslims buried.

In Islam, burying inside the room of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) is restricted to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) who will be buried alongside Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Besides these four exceptions, there has never been a fifth one.  Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was also among the Khulafa-e-Raashideen and who was martyred in Madinah Munawwarah was not buried in the room.

It is blatantly false to describe their simple graves inside the room as ‘constructed shrines’. This room was not built over any grave. It had existed long before the four blessed graves, hence it is not a mausoleum. They are simple graves inside a room, and in the annals of Islam, these are the only four exceptions. The host of other constructed, plastered graves and mazaars are the shirki artefacts of the followers of Iblees, the Qabar Puja gang who prostrates and circumambulates the graves. They acquit themselves like mushrikeen at the mazaars. There is absolutely no resemblance and no affinity between the mazaars of shirk of the Qabar Puja miscreants and the simple graves inside the room of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha).

There were innumerable Auliya of lofty status among the Sahaabah and Taabieen, but mazaars were not constructed for them. If burial inside a room as was for the Four, a practice to be emulated, the Sahaabah would have been the very first to have adopted it. But not a single Sahaabi had adopted this practice. It was confined to the Four illustrious Personalities. Never was this practice extended to any other Wali by the Sahaabah and Taabieen.

(3) The third baseless and stupid argument of the grave worshippers is that in the Qur’aan is mentioned that the Muslims had built a Musjid over the Ashaab-e-Kahaf (the Companions of the Cave). In this regard, the moron Qabar Pujaari states:

“Qadhi Thana Ullah Panipati (Rahumuhullah) writes in his great Tafsir al Mazhari: After the death of Ashaab al Kahf a dispute occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims said that they will make a Masjid over them because they were of our faith whereas the disbelievers said they will build other buildings on it where people will live…This Ayah is proving that Mosques could be made near graves of Awliya in order to say salaat in them. Tabarruk is also attained through the tombs of the Awliya.”

The moron further presents the following tafseer in an abortive attempt to bolster his spurious ‘proof’:

“The Mushrikeen said: We will build a building over it and worship Allah in it but the Muslims said: We have more right over them and we will surely “BUILD A MOSQUE” so that we can pray there and worship Allah. (Tafsir at-Tabri)”  

Briefly, this is blatantly erroneous. In the first place, no one is aware of these Men. They had disappeared inside the mountain. There are no graves of these Companions of the Cave. To this day, there is also the belief that they are still alive, sleeping inside the Cave where they are concealed. Even if they had died, they died inside the mountain cave which has been hidden from the sight of people. No one knows where they exactly are, and no one had ever buried them.

Thus the Musjid which was constructed was a MUSJID for Salaat at the mountain side. It was not a tomb or a mausoleum which housed dead bodies.

This argument is absolutely corrupt and baseless on the basis of several discrepancies:

a) Relevant to the Ashaab-e-Kahaf (the Companions of the Cave), there were no graves, not a single one. No one knows to this day with absolute certitude whether they are still alive or whether they have already died after Allah Ta’ala had aroused them from their slumber of more than three centuries.

When they arose from their sleep, only one of them emerged from the Cave to go to the town to purchase food without realizing that centuries had lapsed. When the reality was unravelled, a crowd followed him back to the mountain to meet the rest of the group. On reaching the Cave, he went in and Allah Ta’ala hid the Cave from the people. It miraculously sealed and to this day no one is aware of the whereabouts of the Cave and its Inmates. Thus, there were no graves. There was no building, tomb or Musjid or any other type of construction built over the Ashab-e-Kahaf.

b) The two groups, i.e. the Mushrikeen and the Muslimeen, desired to erect a temple and a Musjid respectively. The Muslims prevailed and constructed a Musjid on the side of the mountain at the approximate location of the Cave. This Musjid was NOT a tomb. It was not a mausoleum. It was not a plaster on graves. There were no graves inside this Musjid.

c) Qadhi Thanaullah Panipati states in his “great Tafsir al-Mazhari”, as well as all other Mufassireen in their respective Tafseers that the Aayat proves that “Mosques could be made near graves of Awliya”.

Firstly, regarding Ashaab-e-Kahaf, there were no graves. Secondly, building Musjids near to the graves of the Auliya never was an issue of contention. No one disputes this permissibility. Thirdly, the Tafaaseer, including Tafseer Mazhari, explicitly state: “near to the graves of the Auliya”. Nowhere is it mentioned that it is permissible to build Musjids ‘over’ the graves of the Auliya. The Qur’aanic term ‘over’ in the context means ‘near’. There were no graves over which to erect a structure, and the Mufassireen explain it to mean ‘near’. Musjids may be built and have been built near to the graves of even ordinary people. Fourthly, the close environment at the graves of the Auliya being blessed is not denied. This is not the subject of contention. The issue is building Musjids/tombs over the graves of the Auliya. This is haraam and shirk.

d) The Qabar Pujari, cites selectively from Tafseer Mazhari, conveniently omitting the following narrations stated by Qadhi Thanaullah in his “great Tafzir al-Mazhari”:

(i) Muslim narrated from Abil Hibaaj Al-Asadi that Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said to me: ‘Should I not send you to do that for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had sent me? Do not leave any image, but destroy it, nor any raised grave, but flatten it.’

(ii) Muslim narrated from Jaabir (Radhiyallahu anhu) that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that graves be plastered; that (buildings) be built over it (graves), and sitting on it.

(iii) Bukhaari and Muslim narrate from Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) that (on his death bed) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “May Allah curse the Yahood and Nasaara, for they make the graves of their Ambiya Musaajid.” She (i.e. Hadhrat Aishah –Radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘He warned against doing as they did.’”  

Qadhi Thanaullah Panipati (Rahmatullah alayh) commenting on these Ahaadith in his “great Tafsir al-Mazhari”, in the discussion of the very same Aayat from which the Grave-Worshipper has selectively cited, says:

“These Ahaadith indicate the prohibition (Makrooh Tahrimi) of plastering graves, erecting buildings over them and raising the graves. There is no indication in these narrations for prohibition of building Musjids near to the graves.”

In his abortive bid to support his baseless claim, the Qabar Pujaari deemed it expedient to ignore these Ahaadith presented by Qadhi Panipati, as well as his comment, in his “great Tafsir al-Mazhari”, believing that all the readers of his flotsam article are, like him, morons who will be blissfully ignorant of the full tafseer presented by Qadhi Thanaullah (Rahmatullah alayh). 

(e) Should we feign stupidity momentarily and accept that a Musjid was built over the dead bodies of Ashaab-e-Kahaf, then too, this act of a community centuries or perhaps thousands of years prior to the advent of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), may not be presented to abrogate the explicit   commands of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had specifically prohibited the construction of structures over graves and had ordered their demolition as the aforementioned and other Ahaadith as well as the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha confirm.

In the eras of the Ummats of bygone times some acts which were permissible, are forbidden in our Shariah. Examples: Making Sajdah for seniors; marrying more than four wives; liquor, etc. Furthermore, some acts which were forbidden for Muslims of bygone times are permissible for us, e.g. consuming Qur’baani meat. It was haraam for them, but halaal for us. It is only ignoramuses who seek to legalize a practise which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prohibited.

(f) The issue of contention is the construction of Musjids and mausolea over graves. But, the moron grave-worshipper presents proof for the permissibility of building Musjids near to graves. He miserably fails to present any valid argument for the subject under discussion.

4) Presenting another flapdoodle ‘daleel’, the moron grave-worshipper says:

“Imam Muhammad (rah) said: Abu Hanifah (rah) informed us saying that Salim al-aftas narrated to us saying “There is no Prophet who has not fled from its (his) people towards the Ka’ba to worship Allah, and around it there are graves of 300 Prophets.”

This moron grave-worshipper has presented this ludicrous, silly argument despite the fact that the 300 graves of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) are invisible and non-existent as far as people are concerned. There are no graves regardless of them being buried there. In fact, the billions of Muslims are not even aware of these graves of the Ambiya. Furthermore, there are numerous places on earth which once upon a time were graveyards, but which today may be market-places, etc.

This ‘daleel’ is actually a daleel against him because all 300 graves of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) around the Ka’bah have been flattened and demolished. There is not a single grave of any Nabi visible around the Ka’bah.

Furthermore, the moron’s argument is devoid of any intelligence. The Ka’bah was never built on or over graves. In fact, it was not built even near to graves. There existed no graves when the Ka’bah was constructed by Hadhrat Nabi Aadam (Alayhis salaam). The narration from Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) says that the graves are ‘around’ the  Ka’bah. This does not render the Ka’bah a tomb or a mausoleum. The topic of contention is not graves near to a Musjid. The issue is the haraam mushrik practice of constructing buildings over the graves.

In the narration of Imaam Abu Hanifah cited by the moron, there is no mention of constructing buildings on or over graves. Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) only mentioned that there are 300 Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) buried in the surroundings of the Ka’bah.

(5) The Qabar Pujaari’s final argument is the worst drivel in the compound of nonsensical arguments he has presented. This stupid ‘daleel’ is his assertion of the existence of elevated and plastered graves of numerous Auliya, and of mazaars which their shirk-inclined juhala followers had constructed.

He asks: “Why did people since 1000 never demolished it if they could find it against Qur’an and Sunnah?”  

For the edification of this moron, it will be salutary for him to know that ‘people’ did demolish such raised graves and tombs by the thousand. These ‘people’ were the Salafis. If demolition by ‘people’ is proof for the evil of these tombs, then the Salafis who had demolished these shirki structures had demonstrated the proof.

Better proof than the Salafis is Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had instructed Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) to demolish all elevated graves. During his Khilaafat, Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) renewed the act of grave-demolition as the narration mentioned earlier shows.

The moron’s claim that they do not worship the graves of the Auliya is like shaitaan’s claim that he worships only Allah Ta’ala. This claim of the Qabar Pujaari is blatantly false. Any person may visit any of these mazaars, especially in Ajmer, and observe the villainy of shirk being practised at the gravesides of the Auliya. The claim of only ‘taking tabarruk’ is another blatant LIE. They worship the graves. They make sajdah and tawaaf of the graves. They make vows in the name of the Auliya. They direct their supplications to the inmates of the graves, etc., etc. They are soiled and filthied in a plethora of shirki practices at the mazaars.

There is no daleel in Imaam Shaafi’ ‘taking tabarruk’ from Imaam Abu Hanifah’s grave. We all ‘take tabarruk’ from the Quboor of the Auliya. But it is Waajib to abstain from visiting the mazaars where there is a preponderance of mushrik Qabar Pujaaris enacting their numerous acts of shirk. ‘Taking tabarruk’ does not countenance worshipping the graves as these moron bid’atis do. ‘Tabarruk’ in this context means to supplicate to Allah Ta’ala asking Him to accept one’s Dua by virtue of the Qurb (Proximity) the Buzrug has with Allah Ta’ala.

Assuming that these miscreants do not worship the graves, then too, it is imperative to obey Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had commanded the demolition of elevated graves, the prohibition of constructing over graves, and plastering over the graves. He had invoked the la’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal on the Yahood and Nasaara specifically for their construction of buildings and temples over the graves.

The audacity with which these Qabar Pujaaris oppose the explicit Ahaadith Nusoos and the Ijma’ of the Ummah on the prohibition of elevating graves, plastering over graves and constructing monuments and mazaars is akin to kufr. It appears that they have no Imaan, hence constructing buildings on graves and worshipping graves are of greater importance than obedience to the commands of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The treachery and chicanery of the moron grave-worshipper constrained him to selectively quote from Tafseer Mazhari. He makes no mention of the Ahaadith prohibiting these haraam structures – Ahaadith cited by Tafseer Mazhari. Mazaars are the very antithesis of Tauheed. 


A Mausoleum is a monument or an impressive sepulchral construction built in memory of someone.

In its undated letter, the Imam Ahmed Raza Academy of Durban made an abortive flapdoodle attempt to legalize the erection of mausolea by citing the following Qur’anic verse:

“Some said: Construct a building over them.’ Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed over their affairs said: Let us surely built a place of worship over them.’

In accordance with the commentaries of this verse of the Qur’an, which is found in Surah Hashiyah, Imam Bayzawi says: From this it is understood that to erect a Mausoleum for the special people, i.e. Pious Saints and Ulema, is permissible.’  

Firstly, there is no Surah in the Qur’an Majeed named ‘Hashiyah’. Secondly, this verse cited by the Raza Academy is verse 21 of Surah Kahaf. Thirdly, the tafseer which the Raza Academy attributes to Imam Baidhaawi (Bayzawi) is not to be found in his commentary of the verse under discussion. Imam Baidhaawi does not say in the commentary of this verse that erection of mausolea for the Saints and Ulema is permissible.

Presenting the tafseer of this aayat, Baidhaawi says:

‘A group said: ‘We shall build over them a building so that people may live in it and that they establish (by) it a village.’ Others said: ‘Most assuredly we shall erect over them a Musjid for performing Salaat therein.’ Then they built nearby a Musjid.”

The Raza Academy then cites the tafseer of Imam Fakhruddin Razi. However, the following passage is omitted:

“Verily, the kuffar said: ‘They (Ashab-e-Kahaf) were on our religion. Therefore, we shall erect over them a building (i.e. a mausoleum). And, the Muslims said: ‘They were on our Deen. We shall, therefore, erect over them a Musjid.”  

The dispute in the episode of Ashab-e-Kahaf was a dispute between Muslims and Kuffaar. While the kuffaar wanted a mausoleum to be built in memory of the Youths of the Cave, just as the grave-worshippers desire, the Muslims wanted to erect a Musjid nearby in which to worship Allah Ta’ala.

The word ‘over them’, in the context here means nearby. Thus, Baidhaawi translating it, says: “near to it”. Tafseer Bayaanul Qur’an translates it as “nearby them”. The term, over them, is mentioned in both instances, i.e. in the kuffaar’s expression of constructing a mausoleum and in the Muslims’ expression of erecting a Musjid. However, a mausoleum is built literally over the grave, hence the term over in relation to the kuffaar’s proposal refers to the construction of a mausoleum over (literally speaking) the graves. This would have been possible when considering the interpretation that the youths had died and were then buried. If the interpretation of their disappearance is considered then a mausoleum built near to the location of their disappearance would still be said to be ‘over them’.

However, they did not succeed in building of a mausoleum over their graves in view of the disappearance of the youths from the scene. But, it is correct to translate the word (over them) literally in relation to the construction of mausoleum because mausolea are in fact built over the graves. But, this term mentioned in the aayat in relation to the erection of a Musjid means “near to them” or ‘nearby at the mouth of the cave’. It cannot and does not mean “over” the graves of the youths. There were no graves. The Men of the Cave were not buried. They simply disappeared into the mountain.

A Musjid’s purpose is different from the purpose of a mausoleum. The function of a Musjid is for the ibaadat (worship) of Allah Ta’ala. Stating this difference, Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), the Leader of the Mufassireen, said:

“They (the Muslims and the Kuffaar) disputed regarding the building. The Muslims said: ‘We shall build near to them a Musjid because they were on our Deen and died as Muslims.’ The Mushrikeen said: ‘We shall build over them a building (i.e. a mausoleum)‘”(Tafseer Mazhari).

The proposal for building a mausoleum, according to aayat 21 of Surah Kahaf, was the desire of the Kuffaar and Mushrikeen while the proposal for building a Musjid was the desire of the Muslims. Imam Raazi in his tafseer explicitly states that it was the kuffaar’s desire to erect a mausoleum, but according to the Qur’an the wish of the Muslim prevailed and a Musjid was built.

Understanding this negation of the erection of a mausoleum, the Raza Academy translated the word appearing in verse 21 of Surah Kahaf as ‘a building’. It avoids the word mausoleum because this very same Qur’anic aayat negates the mausoleum proposal by stating the prevalence of the Muslims’ desire of building a Musjid.

The Hadith prohibiting the erection of mausolea appears on the very page from which the Raza Academy cites the permissibility. The Hadith of prohibition is:

“Jabir narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that the grave be built and that (a building) be built over it and that (anyone) sits on it.”   (Muslim)

Presenting the tafseer of this Hadith, Mulla Ali Qari states in Mirqat:

“It is said in Al-Azhar: ‘The prohibition of building graves is on account of reprehensibility. And this includes mausoleum.

The prohibition with regard to the building is on account of karahat (reprehensibility) if in one’s own property. And, it (the prohibition) is on account of hurmat (being haraam) if in a public cemetery. Demolition (of the mausoleum) is compulsory even if it is a Musjid (i.e. if the mausoleum is used as a Musjid).”

The permissibility stated by some sheikhs on which the Raza Academy relies is baseless. The permissibility view is in diametric conflict with the express prohibition of building mausolea stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan in verse 21 of Surah Kahaf rejects the idea of a mausoleum as explained. Any view which contradicts the Qur’aan and Hadith has to be rejected regardless of it being the opinion of reliable sheikhs. The final word is the Fatwa of the Jamhoor Fuqaha and Ulama.

The erroneous opinion of any authority has to be incumbently set aside. But the grave-worshippers opt for setting aside the categorical command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for the sake of gratiating their Qabar Puja instincts. 

Even if it is assumed that the construction of mausolea is permissible, then too, these monuments of shirk will be banned because when corruption, kufr and shirk become associated with Ibaahat (permissibility), the permissible act becomes forbidden in terms of the principles of the Shariah. This is a unanimous principle of Islamic Law.

The Grave-Worshippers have attempted to enlist Shaami in support of their baatil contention. However, Shaami does not support mausolea construction. In Shaami it is stated:

“And, a building (i.e. mausoleum) shall not be raised over it (the grave): i.e. it is haraam…. Regarding (the erection of a) building over the grave, I have not seen any (Aalim) who has adopted its permissibility.”  

It is narrated from Abu Hanifah that it is forbidden to build over the grave any building whatsoever, be it a room, a dome or the like because Jabir (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade the plastering of graves; writing on graves and that buildings be erected over graves. Narrated by Muslim and others.”

Regarding mausolea over graves, Imam Shafi said: “I saw the Aimmah in Makkah commanding the demolition of buildings erected over graves.” (Kitaabul Umm).

Muhaddith Allaamah Ali Qari Hanafi Makki said: “And it (acts of bid’ah) which the Aimmah of the Muslims have rejected, are such as buildings (mausolea) over graves and plastering of the graves.” (Mirqaat)

Shami further states: “It is not proper (i.e. not permissible) to bury the deceased inside a house even if it is small. This way (of burying inside a house) is exclusive with the Ambiya.”

This explicit ruling refutes the validity of the permissibility view. In view of the fact that burying inside a building is exclusive with the Ambiya, the unsubstantiated opinion of permissibility is unacceptable. 

The Raza Academy’s attempts to confer permissibility for the mausoleum proposal by citing Hadhrat Maulana Shabbir Uthmani’s tafseer is ambiguous and deceptive. Hadhrat Shabbir Uthman did not speak on the permissibility of erecting mausolea. He simply explained the dispute between the two parties regarding the type of construction to be built near the cave. The Muslim will of erecting a Musjid prevailed. Thus, Tafseer Uthmani states:

“However, those who were influential and powerful (i.e. the Muslims) in the city, decided to build a place of worship (Musjid according to the Qur’an) near the Cave.” (Brackets ours.)

The people of “deep devotion” who wanted to erect a mausoleum were in fact the kuffar. The rejection of this idea is stated in the very passage from Tafseer Uthmani cited by the Raza Academy:

“Yet, those laden with grief and those with competent power, decided upon the building of a place of worship (Musjid) near the Cave.”

Thus, the decision was to build a Musjid, not a mausoleum. The aims and purpose of a Musjid are widely different from those of a mausoleum.

Regarding their citation of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s statements, namely,

“The Hadith forbade all buildings on the grave but did not forbid a grave in the building.”

The permissibility of a grave inside a building is exclusive with the Ambiya. It is not permissible for non-Ambiya. Furthermore, the grave-worshippers acknowledge that the Hadith forbade all buildings on the grave. They are therefore compelled to concede that mausolea which are buildings on/over graves are haraam.

i) As mentioned earlier, ‘a grave inside a building’ is exclusive with the Ambiya. Only a Nabi may be buried inside a house.

ii) Hadhrat Thanvi’s statement (as cited by the Raza Academy) is explicit in stating the prohibition of erecting mausolea, hence it says: “The Hadith forbade all buildings on the grave.”  

The Bid’atis’ desire to erect a mausoleum in the cemetery is “a building on the grave” which according to Hadhrat Thanvi is forbidden. 

iii) Hadhrat Thanvi never meant that just anyone can be buried inside a building. He clearly held the opposite view.

In fact even the bid’atis refute the permissibility of a mausoleum over the grave of laymen. Stating this, the letter of the Raza Academy says:

Ordinary Muslims: The creation of a mausoleum for an ordinary Muslim is forbidden…..”

iv) Hadhrat Thanvi is well-known for his anti-bid’ah, anti-grave worship and anti-mausolea stance. It is therefore scraping the very bottom of the barrel to attempt to salvage substantiation for the permissibility of mausolea from any statements of Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

In the tafseer of aayat 21 of Surah Kahaf in which the preference of erecting a Musjid is stated, Tafseer Qurtubi says in volume 10:

“Thus, erecting Musjids over the grave and preforming Salaat in them and building (mausolea) over them, etc. among the things coming within the scope of the Sunnah’s prohibition, are forbidden and not permissible because Abu Dawood and Tirmizi narrated that Ibn Abbas said: ‘Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed women who visit the graves and those who erect Musajid (or mausolea) over the graves and those who (decorate the graves) with lights.’ Tirmizi said: ‘On this subject are (also) the narrations of Abu Hurairah and Aishah. The Hadith of Ibn Abbas is Hadith Hasan (i.e. a hadith classification). Bukhari and Muslim narrating from Aishah said that Umme Habibah and Umme Salmah were speaking of a church which they had seen in Habshah Abyssinia. In it were pictures. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, those people, when a pious man among them died, they would build a place of worship over his grave and draw those pictures therein. They will be the worst of creation by Allah Ta’ala on the Day of Qiyamah.”  

Tafseer Qurtubi continues:

“Our Ulama said: ‘It is haraam for Muslims to make the graves of the Ambiya and the Ulama places of worship (Musajid)…… Therefore, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) warned against acts like this and he closed the avenues which lead to it (idolatry).”  

He thus said: ‘Allah becomes greatly wrathful on people who make Musajid of the graves of their Ambiya and their saints.’  

“Regarding the high elevated buildings (mausolea) as (the people of) Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam period of ignorance) would erect for the purpose of honouring and venerating, these (the mausolea) shall be demolished and destroyed. Verily in it (mausolea) is the utilization of worldly adornment in the first stage of the stages of the Aakhirah and also (in it is) emulation of those who venerate and worship the graves (like the Qabar Pujaris). With regard to these meanings and the text of the prohibition, it is appropriate to say: It is Haraam. (Qurtubi, vol. 10)

In a baseless bid to prove the permissibility of erecting mausolea, the Raza Academy says:
“One of the proof that is usually given by those who object to the erecting of mausoleums is that in Islam, it is not permitted to build on the grave thus to erect “mausoleum is not permissible’.

In refutation of this claim we must say that the prohibiters of mausolea do not base the prohibition on the prohibition of plastering the grave. Such plastering on top of the grave is a separate haraam act apart from the erection of mausolea. The plastering on top of graves is forbidden whether a mausoleum is erected over a grave or not. The prohibition of erecting mausolea is based on the following factors:

1) The express prohibition stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Jabir (radhiyallahu anhu), which reads: “Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that the grave be plastered (i.e. flattened and plastered over) and that (a building) be erected over it.” (Muslim)

The authorities of the Shariah clearly state that the Qur’aanic terms (in Surah Kahaf) mean ‘to build a building over the grave.’ Thus, the prohibition of mausolea is clearly stated by our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

2) In Sahih Bukhari, under the heading, ‘The section on building a musjid over the grave’, the following hadith is narrated:

“Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘When Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) became ill, some of his wives talked about a church they had seen in the land of Habshah, which was named Mariah. Umme Salmah and Umme Habibah (radhiyallahu anhuma) had come from the Land of Habash and they explained about the beauty of the church and (they mentioned about) the pictures in it. He then lifted his head and said:

‘Those people, when a pious man among them died, they would build over his grave a place of worship, then draw those pictures therein. They are the worst creation by Allah.”  

In another hadith Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) says:

“Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said during his illness in which he had died: ‘May Allah curse the Yahood and Nasara – they make the graves of their Ambiya Musjids’.”

In other words, it was the practice of the kuffaar to erect buildings, mausolea and places of worship over the graves of the Pious people. They then made these tombs and mausolea places of worship perpetrating kufr and shirk just as the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and Grave-worshippers of our age are doing. It was for this reason that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) invoked the la’nat (curse of Allah) on the builders of mausolea.

3) The Qur’anic verse no. 21 of Surah Kahaf negates the proposal of erecting a mausoleum. Preference was given to the erection of a Musjid near to the Cave.

4) An additional factor of prohibition apart from the first three primary factors is the irrefutable fact that ALL mausolea are haunts of bid’ah, shirk and other evil practices. Islam has no relationship with institutions of polytheism (shirk).

Presenting another utterly baseless argument in favour of tomb-structures (mazaars/mausolea), the Raza Academy says:

“The other objection made by those who are objecting to the Mazaars is usually this, that Muslims going there prostrate to graves. It is not a common practice for Muslims to prostrate or bow before graves. Neither do Muslims make Tawaaf of the graves. This is a baseless and flimsy accusation and if anyone acts in such an unIslamic manner, then this is not an argument to substantiate that Mausoleums should not be erected. As a matter of fact due to sheer ignorance, some Muslims even act un-Islamically in the Mosques. Does this mean that Mosques should not be built?”  

No, this does not mean that Mosques should not be build. The aforementioned statement of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah confirms that they acknowledge that acts of grave-worship do occur at the mausolea although (according to them) they are ‘not common’. But this is blatantly false. The truth is that the various acts of worship mentioned in this statement are, not only common, but are essential acts of worship associated with the mazaars of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah or the Qabar Pujaris. Only people who have absolutely no respect for the truth can deny these realities of grave-worship taking place at the mazaars. One can only dismiss the claim made in the statement with scorn and contempt for its blatant falsity.

The analogy which the Raza Academy draws between Mosques and mausolea is highly erroneous. While Musaajid are among the Maqaasid (objectives) of Islam, mausolea are objects of curse. While Islam commands the erection of Musajid, it denounces the erection of mausolea. In Islam there is absolutely no encouragement for the erection of mausolea.

On the other hand, there is considerable emphasis and great merit for the erection of Musjids. Since Musjids are integral institutions of Islam, they cannot be abandoned on account of the accretion of un-Islamic factors. On the contrary, mausolea have no significance in Islam. They are abhorrent structures. They lead to acts of grave worship, kufr and shirk, hence they are accursed. In view of these facts, they are banned even prior to their erection to prevent the spread of idolatry which is the very antithesis of Tauhid. It is thus baseless to argue the case of the mausoleum on the basis of the Musjid.

The Raza Academy alleges:

“These Mausoleums date back to the early days of Islam.”  

The “early days of lslam” in relation to the Shariah are the days of the Sahaabah and their immediate successors. None of the Sahaabah had ever erected a mausoleum. On the contrary, Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) once ordered the removal of a tent placed over a grave. The illustrious Fuqaha among the Taabieen did not teach the erection of mausolea. People of ignorance and bid’ah, much later erected mausolea over the graves of great Auliya and Masha-ikh.

The claim that l “learned Muslim scholars were responsible for the erection of Mausoleums” is devoid of truth. Ignorant men of bid’ah were responsible for these accursed haunts of shirk and kufr.

The claim that the righteous Ulama of India, Pakistan, etc., etc., support the erection of mausolea is baseless and false. Those so-called ulama aligned to the Qabar Pujari sect are the ones who support the structures of shirk and kufr known as mausolea or “Mausoleums” to the Raza Academy of Bid’ah.

To Summarise:
1) The Qur’an refutes the erection of mausolea.
2) The Hadith invokes Allah’s curse on those who erect mausolea.
3) The Authorities of Islam from the time of the Sahabah reject mausolea.
4) Mausolea are not Islamic structures.
5) All four Math-habs condemn mausolea.
6) Mausolea are associated with kufr and shirk which are inseparable from the institutions of mazaars operated by the Grave-worshippers.

The Ahl-e-Bid’ah should also understand that they cannot eke out substantiation for their desires of shirk by producing any seemingly conflicting statements of our Akaabireen (Senior Masha-ikh), whether it be Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali or Muhaddith Abdul Haq Dehlwi. The instruction of our seniors is to discard any of their statements which appear to clash with the Proofs of the Shariah. Furthermore, the Bid’ah group is adept in the art of quoting out of context, presenting half-truths and attributing even blatant lies to the Ulama-e-Haq.

We say to the Qabar Pujari jamaat:

Present your arguments on a common platform, namely, the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma and Qiyaas. Any opinion in conflict with these Dalaa-il (Proofs) stands rejected regardless of the personality such opinion emanates from. It therefore, does not serve the Bid’atis any benefit to seek substantiation from ambiguous statements of some of our Seniors. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:



[From Al-Haqq Bulletin]

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The Hour (of Qiyaamah) will not come except when idols will be worshipped in the Mihraabs (of the Musaajid).”

This prediction of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has already materialized in the kufr state of Egypt where the Christian Cross was placed in the Mihraab of the Musjid and Salaat was performed facing this symbol of shirk.

The Moroccan Shaikh Abul Faidh Ahmad Al-Ghumaari mentioning this episode of shirk, states in his book, Al-Ikhtiraa-aatul Asriyyah:

“Mustafa Al-Qayaati who is among the teachers at Al-Azhar said: ‘Sa’d (i.e. the Murtad, Sa’d Zaghlul who had founded the nationalist movement in Egypt) is superior to Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He has brought with him what the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not bring, and most certainly he is the national rasool (prophet of Egypt). This La-een (i.e. the Accursed Murtad Sa’d) was   among them (in that gathering in the Musjid). He (the vile teacher from Azhar) took the cross and placed it in the Mihraab of the (Musjid) of Azhar and stood up. May Allah curse him. Then he supplicated (made dua) for the unification of Islam and Coptic Christianity. He called those present to perform two raka’ts salaat in congregation whilst the cross was in the Mihraab. He recited the takbeer and performed two raka’ts salaat with the cross in front of him. May Allah Ta’ala curse him.”

This act of worshipping the cross occurred in the 1920’s. The next known act of cross-worship was by the South African, Reverend Abraham Bham of the NNB jamiat of Fordsburg about a decade ago.  (NNB stands for No Name Brand). This reverend of the cross masquerades as a ‘Muslim’ and a ‘Maulana’.