Category Archives: Deoband

Hadhrat Thanvi’s Views – Some Ishkals (Doubts) From the Ibaraat of Malfuzaat Hakim ul-Ummat & Its Answers

Answers By Mujlisul Ulama

A Brother with some Ishkaals pertaining to the Malfoothaat of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh), poses the following queries:

I have some queries regarding an article that was written by a Maulana of the UK. In the article, which I have attached to this email, he quotes miscellaneous Malfoozaat of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh). What we have read in these Malfoozaat seems very different to the version of Hadhrat Thanvi as we learnt about him. I will give a summary of some of the things mentioned in the article which has caused some iskhkaal (uncertainty).

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi said that the doors of ijtihaad are only closed with regards to matters of usool and not when it comes to matters of furoo`.

Answer: The Furoo’ in the context refers to new developing issues, e.g. blood donation, surrogacy, transplanting organs, machine-slaughtering, insurance and   numerous other issues which   always develop with the progress of time. On such issues on which the Fuqaha are silent, then obviously the well-grounded Ulama of the age will be constrained to acquire rulings on the basis of the Usool as well as similar Furoo’ formulated by the Aimmah Mujtahideen of the Salafus Saaliheen era. Furoo’ in the context does not refer to such Furoo’ on which there is Ijmaa’ of the Fuqaha of the Math-hab, e.g. Wudhu has four Faraaidh, a quarter of the head is Fardh for masah, Qur’baani is Waajib on every adult who has the means, and the thousands of other Furoo’ pertaining to all acts of Ibaadat.

However, regarding such Furoo’ on which there exists difference of opinion among our own Fuqaha and Aimmah Mujtahideen, there is scope for Ijtihaad, e.g. Is Isha’ Salaat Fardh in an abnormal time zone region where there is no Isha’ time? According to some Fuqaha, there is no Isha’ Salaat there. This is also Hadhrat Gangohi’s view. However, according to other Fuqaha, Isha’ remains Fardh even in such a region. In an ikhtilaaf of this nature, we shall apply our minds and issue a Fatwa which our hearts believe is the best, and in this particular case, we say that Isha’ remains Fardh.

There are numerous Furoo’ of this nature of Ikhtilaaf. Ijtihaad in them will be permissible. Nevertheless, even if there is some Ikhtilaaf, it remains incumbent to adopt the view of the Jamhoor-Fuqaha of the Math-hab, and to adopt Ihtiyaat. If there is no incumbent need, it will not be permissible to depart from the Mufta Bihi version of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Math-hab.

It should be well understood that there is no scope for latitude based on nafsaaniyat. Flitting from Math-hab to Math-hab, and from one view to another for the sake of pleasing people, is haraam. Liberals and deviates do so at the peril of the destruction of their Imaan.

It has also been observed that some Akaabir have their own tafarrudaat–views in which they   are solitary perpetrators in stark opposition of the Mufta Bihi version of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of their own Math-hab, e.g. Hadhrat Madani (Rahmatullah alayh) performing Tahajjud in Jamaat. Such tafarrudaat should be compulsorily buried, husband has disappeared has been acquired from the Maaliki Math-hab. This procedure is entirely correct and within the confines of the Math-hab. But this is subject to a valid Shar’i Dhuroorat. It is not based on whim and fancy to dance to the tune not advertised. There is no daleel in such a misaligned   view of a senior. A tafarrud may not be tolerated. It is never a basis for diversion from the Math-hab’s official Ruling.

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi said that when it comes to matters of mu’aamalaat, he will give a Fatwaa on another Madh-hab if it is a case of dharoorat. He asked permission for this from Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi. Permission was granted.

Answer: We are in agreement with this. We too adopt this for practical purposes when there is a Shar’i Dhuroorat. In fact this is a principle of our Math-hab. Thus, what Hadhrat Thanvi did was to act within the confines of the Math-hab by acting in terms of the principle which allows for such diversion from the Math-hab and incorporation into the Math-hab of a mas’alah from another Math-hab. The mas’alah of four years waiting period for a woman whose husband has disappeared has been acquired from the Maaliki Math-hab. This procedure is entirely correct and within the confines of the Math-hab.

But this is subject to a valid Shar’i Dhuroorat. It is not based on whim and fancy to dance to the tune of an ignorant modernist public. Nowadays,  just any whimsical need of morons is accepted by the maajin moron ‘muftis’ for issuing stupid and corrupt fatwas of jawaaz. This trifling with the Deen is fraught with calamitous consequences.

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi used to recite Soorah al-Faatihah behind the Imaam, but later on left off this practice. When he began doing it, he mentioned it to Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, but Hadhrat Gangohi maintained silence (didn’t object to it). Later on when he left it off, he again mentioned this to Hadhrat Gangohi, and again Hadhrat Gangohi maintained silence.

Answer: This act of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) was his tafarrud, which was erroneous, and must be set aside. He himself dithered on its validity, hence he later abandoned it. Hadhrat Gangohi’s silence is not a determinant or a criterion for accepting tafarrudaat. On the contrary, Hadhrat’s silence was a silent disapproval for the tafarrud of Hadhrat Thanvi. According to the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha reciting Surah Fatihah behind the Imaam is HARAAM. Thus, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) had erred in this respect, and his abandonment of the practice signifies his Rujoo’.

Every good horse also slips. We follow the Haqq they present, not their errors. We are on solid grounds when we follow the Aimmah and Fuqaha of our Math-hab. There are numerous Rujoo-aat of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh). At one stage he was not aware of the fact that to fast only on 10th Muharram is Makrooh, and that another day should be added. There are many such errors even among the Fuqaha, hence the preponderance of two or three views on almost every mas’alah among the Shaafi’ Fuqaha. They have too many   qadeem and jadeed views on   almost every mas’alah.

The senior who pulls to the side with his tafarrud is on delicate ground. Allah save him from such errors which become blurred to even illustrious personalities. The safest course is to remain firm on the version of the Jamhoor. This is in fact Siraatul Mustaqeem whilst the tafarrud is deviation. Never shall anyone be questioned on the Day of Qiyaamah for having resolutely adhered to the Jamhoor’s fatwa. But there is the  very real possibility of the Mutafarrid Buzrug having to stand in the Divine Court to account for his tafarrud, especially if he had no imperative need for his departure from the Straight Road of the Math-hab.

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi praised Imaam ibn Taymiyyah and Imaam ibn al-Qayyim, saying they were `Aarifeen, and he referred to Imaam ibn Taymiyyah with the title of Allaamah.  

Answer: In India there was at that time a great dearth of the kutub of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, hence   most of our Akaabir of that era were unaware of the views of Ibn Taimiyyah. They were therefore justified to speak highly of Ibn Taimiyyah on the basis of the paucity of their awareness of his deviation. If you read some of our own publication of 40 years ago, you will find praise for Ibn Taimiyyah. That was due to our ignorance of his views. It was years later when Hadhrat Husain Ahmad Madani (Rahmatullah alayh) came from Madinah to teach Hadith in Deoband, that he began to apprize our Ulama of the reality of Ibn Taimiyyah. We are under no obligation to follow Hadhrat Thanvi’s view on this issue – a view based on insufficient information.

Such ‘taqleed’ is in fact jumood (fossilization of the brains) which is condemned by the Fuqaha.

Consider the example of stock  market shares. Since our Akaabir were unaware of the true meaning of this concept, and since it was erroneously explained to them by some traders and by the one who posed the question, they  understood that it was a valid shirkat, hence they issued their fatwa of permissibility. However, those who are aware of this concept, understand its hurmat to be clearer than the sun’s light at mid-day. Now making ‘taqleed’ of such an error of the Akaabir is satanic jumood (intellectual fossilization).

Q. Once, after performing Tawaaf, someone asked him why he does not wear the turban, so Hadhrat Thanvi asked him, “Is it fardh or waajib?” The man replied that it is Sunnah. He then asked, “Is it an emphasised Sunnah or mustahabb?”  

A. Wearing the turban is Mustahab. This is the Fiqhi category of the Turban. Our Akaabir generally do not don Amaamah. However, they are not in denial of the Sunnah status of the Turban. When a Mustahab is elevated to the status of Wujoob, then in terms of the Shar’i principle, the Mustahab shall be set aside to avoid resemblance with the Ahl-e-Bid’ah. The Qabar  Pujaari (Grave Worshipping) sect believe that wearing the turban, especially for Jumuah is Waajib. In our day too, the Tablighis entertain such a belief. They in fact scorn and despise those Ulama such as Hadhrat Thanvi, who do not wear Amaamah. On account of such ghulu’ it is our understanding that our Akaabir had abstained from Amaamah. The Tablighis profess taqleed to Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (Rahmatullah alayh). They should check Hadhrat’s Fataawa Mahmoodiyyah for the status of the Amaamah.

It must also be remembered that whilst even a Mustahab act is of great importance and significance, the one who does not meticulously observe it may not be despised, scorned or castigated. Ghulu’ is the disease of the juhala.

Hadhrat Thanvi had also mentioned that his head would feel hot with an amaamah.  Furthermore, those who place so much emphasis on the Amaamah, do not place any emphasis   whatsoever on wearing the lungi which was the permanent garb of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and of all the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). Why this discrepancy in attitude? Is the lungi not Sunnah? Undoubtedly, it is. However, it is of the Mustahab category.

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi said that closing the eyes in Salaah is against the Sunnah but permissible without karaahah.

Answer: We differ with Hadhrat Thanvi on this issue. If it is Sunnah to perform Salaat with open eyes, then it will most certainly be Makrooh Tahrimi to perform Salaat with closed eyes without valid reason.

Adopting closed eyes as a permanent practice is not permissible because it is in violation of the Sunnah. It is not permissible to abandon a Sunnah without valid reason.

An Aalim mureed of Haaji Imdaadullah (Rahmatullah alayh), narrated that once he had performed two raka’ts Nafl with   deep concentration and considerable care. During the night, in a dream, his Salaat was shown to him as a damsel of Jannat of stunning beauty. When he looked carefully at her, he observed that she was blind. Haaji Imdaadullah spontaneously informed him that she was blind because he had performed the Salaat with closed eyes.

Q. A Salafi once requested to take bay`t with Haji Imdadullah on condition he remains a Salafi. Hadhrat agreed. Hadhrat was later on informed that this person (Salafi) has left off loud Aameen and raising the hands. Hadhrat asked him if this is the case, and he said yes. Hadhrat said to him, “If your view and research has changed then I shall not prevent you because not saying Aameen loudly and not raising the hands is also Sunnah. However, if you have abandoned because of your relation with me, and you regard your past practice as Sunnah, then I shall not take the responsibility of abandoning a Sunnah on myself.”

Answer:  We too will adopt the method of Haji Imdaadullah if we are placed in a similar situation. A Shaafi may not abandon what he believes to be Sunnah merely for the sake of his Hanafi sheikh. A lackadaisical attitude towards the Math-hab’s practices is to trifle with the Deen. It is haraam to abandon a practice one believes to be Sunnah merely to appease one’s sheikh or ustaadh. The muqallid has no daleel for abandoning what his Math-hab teaches to be Sunnah.

Q. When some Ghayr Muqallideen would request to take bay`t with Hadhrat Thanvi, he would ask them their opinion on Taqleed. If they said that Taqleed is permissible but not necessary, he would accept them as his Mureeds.

Answer: The purpose of Bay’t is Islaah of the Nafs. If a ghair muqallid becomes bay’t to a Muqallid Shaikh, then Insha-Allah, he will see the light and abandon his adamant taqleed. Anyhow, accepting ghair muqallideen as mureeds was Hadhrat Thanvi’s method. It is not a method   which can be imposed on another Shaikh who refuses to initiate ghair muqallideen as mureeds. This is not a Shar’i ikhtilaaf. It is a personal issue.

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi once defended the Barelvis and the Salafis. One Barelvi remarked that, “Who says Ashraf Ali is from the Deobandis?  De obandis just attribute him to them for the sake of it. He is from our group.”

Answer: On which issue did Hadhrat Thanvi defend the Barelwis? He has written copiously against the bid’aat of the Barelwis. Defending a Barelwi on any specific issue would have been on an issue   which was not in conflict with the Shariah. Again, the Mashaaikh have their own different ways of tarbiyat. While their methods will be respected if not in conflict with the Shariah, there is no imperative need to adopt anyone’s method. Thus, some of the methods of Islaah of Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh) were in complete contrast to the methods of his Shaikh, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh). Methodology is largely formed in terms of personal disposition (tabiyat).

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi said: “Some extreme people are so rigid in following their Imaams that they openly reject non-conflicted Saheeh Hadiths because of their Imaam’s statement. May Allaah protect us from such rigidness. It appears from the actions of such people that they regard Imaam Abu Haneefah as maqsood bidh-dhaat. Now, if someone declares this as Shirk in Nubuwwat, what is his mistake?”  

Answer: We are in agreement with Hadhrat Thanvi’s comments. Ghulu’ is haraam. If, for example, Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view is in conflict with the Hadith, then it will be ghulu’ to doggedly adhere to it. But of absolute importance on this issue is that we are not in position to decide if Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view has to be set aside. This decision is made for us by the illustrious Fuqaha who were Mujtahids in their own right. Thus, we set aside Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view of the abrogation of Aqeeqah, not because we found it to be against the Hadith, but because all of the Hanafi Fuqaha have set his view aside.

We set aside Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view of the 6 Shawwaal fasts being bid’ah on the basis   of what our own Fuqaha, the Students of Imaam Abu Hanifah, had ruled. We do not put ourselves against Imaam A’zam (Rahmatullah alayh) on the basis of our absolutely deficient and weak research. It would be shaitaaniyat if we have to adopt such a route of contumacy.

Another example, is Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view on alcohol which almost all of these modern day stupid muftis adopt despite the fact that for the past almost 14 centuries the Fatwa of the Jamhoor Fuqaha and of all the Fuqaha of the other Math-hab is on the view of Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh), which is the view of the prohibition of all forms of alcohol. And this is based on the Hadith. Now these maajin muftis of our present era come within the scope of Hadhrat Thanvi’s criticism on this issue of ghulu’. Their nafs constrain them to accept the liberal view which is in conflict with the Fatwa of all Math-habs, not only the Hanafi Math-hab. They want to devour chocolates, sweets, processed junk food, harmful soft drinks, artificial juices, etc., hence they perpetrate ghulu’ by abandoning what the Shariah has propounded for almost 14 centuries. And, for this nafsaaniyat, they have no valid Shar’i daleel. There is no Dhuroorat for devouring poison, liquor and carrion.

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi said, “Nowadays this illness is widespread amongst the people of the truth that they compare the Madhaahib of the Mujtahids in such a way that it gives the impression that the other Madhaahib are invalid. For example, they will give preference to the Hanafi position on an issue in such a way that it gives the impression of the Shaafi`ee position being invalid…..In differed upon issues, one should not regard one side as definitively right and the other side as definitively wrong, because sometimes the reality is disclosed at the time of death.”  

Answer: We are in full agreement with what Hadhrat Thanvi said on bigoted preference to one’s Math-hab. However, that attitude applied to his time in India and perhaps elsewhere. It does not apply to us. We show utmost respect to all Four Math-habs, and we propagate that followers must strictly follow their respective Math-habs and not be like chameleons such as the MJC sheikhs and even the pseudo-  deobandi molvis of today. They do not know whether they are moving forward or backwards. They are the muqallids of their nafs, not of the Deen.  


Stance of Deoband on Observing Urs/Uroos of the Saints

Question: Hadhrat Shah Waliullah (rahmatullahi alayh) writes, “Sometimes Khwaja Khurd used to celebrate Urs/Uroos of his Shaykh, Khawaja Baqi Billah (rahmatullahi alayh)” [Anfaas al-Aarifeen pg 65] Why do Sunni scholars affiliated with Deoband then prohibit the customary URS death anniversaries of Sufi saints??

ANSWER (by Hadhrat Qari Tayyib rahmatullahi alayh): The basis of [Urs/Uroos] was that when a Shaykh of Tariqah from the ahlullah used to pass away, his affiliates would gather. One of the benefits of this was that people who had a weak spiritual afiliation (Dha’eef ul-Nisbat) would get [spiritual] power (quwwah) from people of strong spiritual affiliation (Qawwi ul-Nisbah) and this would strengthen their spiritual connection.

Another advantage was that they (the Khulafa) were assigned different “Wilaayats” (areas) to go and help in (people’s spiritual) reformation (Islaah) and spread Islam. The reality is that Islam was spread in India by the Sufis, and Urs was an annual opportunity for them to gather and make & assign groups (of people) which would then spread guidance and propagate Truth [tableegh i-haq].

This is the reason that there are graves of “Shah-e-Wilayat” in every district and village in Saharanpur, in Deoband and everyhwere. The reality was that when a group was sent for Tabligh, one person used to head it and this person was called the Shah-e-Wilayat. Wherever he used to die, he was buried as Shah-e-Wilayat. In short, there (in Urs, groups of) Wilaayats were divided, “You go and spread Islam” and this one “You go and help with spiritual reformation of Muslims”.

With regards to Hadhrat Khwaja Ajmeri (rahmatullahi alayh) even Christians bore witness, Sir Thomas Arnold in his “Preaching of Islam” says: “99 lakh people converted to Islam on the hands of Hadhrat Khwaja Moinuddeen Chisti (rahmatullah alayh) alone, and the number of people his khulafa converted is another amount”

Hadhrat Sultan-ul-Awliya Nizamuddeen Dehlwi (rahmatullahi alayh) had 900 of his Khalifah’s sent to Deccan, they converted thousands to Islam. If you visit there, you’ll see that its a very narrow area amongst the mountains difficult to traverse, there was no mosque or shrine there, (yet) these people went there. So this was the ACTUAL essence of Urs/Uroos, now, it has become a carnival event where women attend, dance on music, people set up stalls and trade, and every (type of) corrupt practice happens.

If you point these things out, they say, “Look, these people disrespect awliya, they are condemning Urs!”. This is not condemning Urs!!, this is condemning the reprehensive (things) which are not only against the Sunnah but are blameworthy innovations in the name of Urs/Uroos introduced by the ignorant people, I declare that if Urs/Uroos events are cleared of these abominable acts, and (instead) groups of Muballigheen are dispatched, scholars are called and Islamic speech are organised, recitation of the Qur’an is introduced etc…no one prohibits Urs/Uroos.

In fact, Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Azeez ur-Rahman (rahmatullahi alayh), the senior-most Mufti of Dar’al Uloom Deoband (who) was a buzurg from the Naqshbandiyyah Order used to attend the Urs of Imaam Rabbani (rahmatullahi alayh) in Sirhind Shareef every year. Nobody from Deoband ever stopped him! Why? Because there were no such reprehensive practices there (in Sirhind Shareef)… Summarising, in reality Urs/Uroos is not condemned, but the unislamic acts (which have become) associated with it are.

The common people are steadfast on these customs and they say: “Look, these people are stopping Urs/Uroos, although it has been a custom of pious elders for centuries”. Tell me: Did these pious elders teach music and dance? Their basis (of comemorating death anniversary) was that it was a means for Tabligh & spreading the message of Islam. This aspect vanished, and (just) music and dance remained.”

[Malfuzat Hakeem-ul-Islam Hadhrat Qari Tayyib Qasmi, Vol. 7 pgs. 468-471]

Milad & the Present-Day “Deobandis”

By Mujliisul Ulama



Maajin (Moron-Jaahil) so-called ‘muftis’ not worth tuppence, are abortively struggling to promote current ‘mawlid’ practices as permissible. It is the claim of these morons that this is an issue of valid difference of opinion of the Math-habs. This stance which the jaahil ‘muftis’ and ‘molvis’ masquerading as ‘Deobandis’, are peddling is baseless (baatil), and has no validity in the Shariah. They cite some big names of Shaafi’ Ulama who had appeared on the scene 600, 700 and a 1000 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and expect Muslims in general, and genuine Ulama in particular to swallow. But deglutition is a deficiency of morons, not of men of Aql.

On the assumption that the big names had claimed permissibility for current haraam mawlid bid’ah functions, it will be rejected with contempt. The views of Ulama who mounted the platform of Islam many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and centuries after the codification of the Four Math-habs of Islam, have absolutely no Shar’i status if in conflict with the  Shariah as was handed to the  Ummah from the era of Khairul Quroon. It is imperative to view the fatwas of scholars, be they big names and big guns, in the light of several immutable principles of Islam which are:

(1)  The Shariah was finalized and perfected during the very age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah.

In this regard, the Qur’aan Majeed states explicitly with emphasis:

“This Day have I perfected for you (O Muslimeen!) your Deen, and (on this Day) have I completed for you My Favour (the Shariah of Islam), and I have chosen for you Islam as Deen.” [Surah Al-Maaidah, Aayat 3]

The completion, perfection and finalization of Islam with its Shariah preclude addition, deletion and alteration. All new practices presented in the hues of ibaadat have no room in Islam. The addition of new so-called ‘ibaadat’ practices implies the falsity of the aforementioned Qur’aanic aayat. It implies that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) departed at a time when the Deen had not yet been finalized, and despite imperfection of the Deen, Nubuwwat had ended. All such implications are kufr.

(2)  Ibaadat is only what was taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. 

In this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who innovates in this Amr (Deen) anything which is not of it, verily it is mardood (rejected and accursed).”

“The vilest of things are innovations (acts of bid’ah), and every bid’ah is dhalaalah (deviation leading to Jahannam).”

“Verily, Allah deprives every person of bid’ah from Taubah.”

These are just a couple of Ahaadith cited randomly. There is a deluge of Ahaadith in condemnation of bid’ah.

(3)  Ibaadat is only such worship/ practices which existed during the  Khairul Quroon.

Any practice promoted as ibaadat, which was innovated after Khairul  Quroon is mardood. Regarding the authority and authenticity of the effects of Khairul Quroon,  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Honour my Sahaabah, for they are your noblest, then those after them (the Taabieen), then those after them (the  Tab-a-Taabi’een). Thereafter kizb (lies/falsehood) will become prevalent.”

“The best of my Ummah, is my Age, then those after them (i.e.  after the Sahaabah), then those after them (the Taabi’een), then those after them (the Tab-e-Taabi’een). Thereafter will appear people who will (of their own accord) testify without being called on to testify. They will abuse trust and will not be trustworthy. They will pledge, but not fulfil (their pledges/promises). Among them  obesity (haraam fatness) will become prevalent………Then will come people who will love obesity.” 

On the basis of the aforementioned inviolable three Shar’i principles, all mawlid practices regardless of their nature and deceptive ‘beauty’ and ‘correctness’ are all the products of falsehood and obesity. All these innovated practices deceptively described and named, are acts of dhalaalah which lead to the Fire of Jahannam. A salient feature of these merrymaking garrulous and gluttonous singing, eating and feasting festivals of bid’ah is, the factor of ‘obesity’ mentioned and deprecated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Excessive feasting produces physical obesity which causes spiritual emaciation. These haraam ‘mawlid’ birthday functions emulated from the kuffaar – specialize in feasting and fun. People devour food like gluttons at these festivals falsely presented as ibaadat.

The entire year these miserable votaries of bid’ah forget Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sunnah. But for sustaining their nafsaani practices and desire for fun and festival, they sully the name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by hoisting their bid’ah sayyiah (evil bid’ah) in the very name of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Aiding the deviates are the maajin  ‘muftis’ who compound jahaalat with jahaalat. They disgorge utter tripe ‘fatwas’ which none of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had ever ventured.

The Akaabir Ulama of Deoband were always in the forefront of the Jihad against bid’ah, including the bid’ah of mawlid/moulood/meelaad. Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, the Founder of Darul Uloom Deoband, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi – unanimously the greatest Aalim of Ahl-e-Deoband – Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and many other glittering Stars of Uloom and Taqwa which had emblazoned the firmament of Shar’i Uloom, Taqwa and Wara, were all branded kaafir over and over again by the people of Barelwi with whom today the ulama-e-soo’ masquerading as ‘deobandis’ are beginning to strike up alliances. Our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had remained steadfast until the very last moments of their earthly lives in their stance and condemnation of Bid’ah. They had unanimously proclaimed meelaad with all its paraphernalia bid’ahbid’ah sayyiah.

When a misunderstanding developed in the wake of a booklet attributed to Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh), the Shaikh of the three Akaabir Ulama mentioned above, Hadhrat Gangohi and Hadhrat Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayhim) said firmly that Haaji Sahib should “consult us” in these matters. “We did not become bay’t to Haaji Sahib to ascertain the status of Hadith”. In matters of the Shariah, Haji Sahib had to refer to these illustrious Akaabir of Deoband who were his Mureeds.

In this belated age we find youngster moron ‘molvis’ citing  from the texts of Shaafi’ Ulama who arrived on the scene 7, 8, and 10 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in their despicable attempt to negate the unequivocal Fatwa of the Ulama of Deoband on the issue of meelaad, yet they dub themselves ‘deobandis’. They are plain stupid, lacking in entirety in foresight and understanding. It is haraam for such morons to speak on Deeni issues. They should restrict their efforts to teaching Nooraani Qaaidhah, for they do nothing but mislead the masses with their convoluted fatwas of stupidity which provide unfettered latitude for the perpetuation of the haraam khuraafaat of all prevalent bid’ah sayyiah mawlid/meelaad practices and functions of merrymaking designed to foster haraam obesity as prophesized by  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

These cranks who attempt to subtly negate the Fatwa of prohibition of the Akaabir of Deoband to appease the Ahl-e-Bid’ah should remove their masks of deception and renounce the flimsy veneer of ‘deobandi’ism’ which they flaunt to mislead and misguide others.

Mawlid/meelaad bid’ah is not a matter of valid difference of the Math-habs. Our Akaabir have condemned it on the basis of it being Bid’ah Sayyiah. There is nothing ‘hasanah’ (beautiful) about this bid’ah regardless of what the 7th, 8th  and 10th century Shaafi’ Ulama may have said. The views of the centuries-later Shaafi’ Ulama on the bid’ah of mawlid are baatil. Such views are pure personal opinion devoid of Shar’i substance. They had proffered noShar’i daleel for permissibility. No one’s  personal opinion bereft of Shar’i dalai-il is Hujjat (proof/evidence) against the explicit and emphatic Shar’i Fatwa of Prohibition of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband.

Regardless of the ‘charity’ which the initial mawlid practice may have catered for, the fact is irrefutable that the  opinion of permissibility was  extremely short-sighted. It is such  opinions which have culminated in the  evil of current  day bid’ah mawlid festivals which are riddled with haraam and vice.

The names of Ibn Hajar, Suyuti, Shaukaani, Sakhawi, Qurafi (Rahmatullah alayhim), etc. – all having  appeared on the scene many centuries  after Khairul Quroon – do not alter the Shariah by one jot or dot. All the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and Tabe Taabi’een  were fully aware of Rasulullah’s day of birth and what a wondrous and blessed occasion it was for humanity.  No  one’s love for Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) superseded the love which the Sahaabah cherished in their hearts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). If there was any goodness whatsoever in the kuffaar practice of celebrating birthdays of  Ambiya or if such stupid functions had  been valid expressions of love, the Sahaabah would have been the very  first to have initiated mawlid/meelaad just as they had initiated and embedded  in Islam Taraaweeh in the current form as well as some other practices of Ibaadat.

The Sabab/Illat or raison d’etre cited  by the Bid’atis for permissibility of mawlid existed to a greater degree during the age of the Sahaabah and the Khairul Quroon era. Despite its  existence and despite the stupendously greater love the Sahaabah cherished for Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), they never initiated any  practice which had even a slight resemblance to bid’ah, and by this we mean such bid’ah which initially may have been without the haraam, fisq and fujoor of current evil mawlid  merrymaking, nafsaani functions of singing and feasting.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would not have deprived the Ummah of Thawaab  (Reward) by remaining silent of meelaad had it been an ibaadat and an amal of merit. Lailatul Qadr, Lailatul Baraa’ah, the Nights of the two Eids, the Day of Aashura and the Day of  Arafaat are days of ibaadat and great spiritual treasures and reward.  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) actively promoted these auspicious days and nights. He instructed fasting and Nafl ibaadat for these occasions. Yet, he remained completely silent about the day of his blessed birth. If it  was a day of ibaadat to be observed and to gain thawaab, then the silence of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would have been
irreconcilable with his mission of  Nubuwwat. His very silence and his  abstention from hoisting his day of birth on the Ummah as a day of  observance is the clearest evidence damning the bid’ah sayyiah meelaad practices which the miscreants have innovated in emulation of the Yahood and Nasaara who celebrate the birthday anniversaries of the holy personages.

Meelaad has been hoisted on the Ummah as if it is an ibaadat of the highest merit. It has been given a status far superior to even Lailatul Qadr, and those who abstain from it are branded kaafir.  In fact, our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband have been labelled kaafir over and over by the Qabar Pujaari sect (the Barelwis) for proclaiming that their meelaad is bid’ah. 

The argument that mawlid if practiced ‘correctly’ is permissible is moronic. Bid’ah, said Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) is never beautiful. Bid’ah is ugly. It is satanic. It is shaitaan’s most potent trap. There is no beauty in innovation presented in the form of ibaadat. It is simply not  ibaadat. It was unknown in the era of Khairul Quroon. It is a centuries-later innovation, and the only flimsy basis the votaries of this bid’ah can disgorge is the personal opinion, unsubstantiated by Nusoos or Shar’i Usool – opinions of some Shaafi’ Ulama of many centuries after Khairul Quroon – after finalization and perfection of Islam. Islam can never be adorned and beautified with innovated practices. If there had been a need for enhancing the beauty of Islam with added and innovated acts disguised as ‘ibaadat’, Allah Ta’ala would not have finalized and terminated Nubuwwat. The door of Nubuwwat would have been left open as it was left open until Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The very finalization and termination of the long Chain of Nubuwwat is the strongest evidence for the butlaan (nullity  and falsehood) of the bid’ah ‘ibaadat’ funfare festival of mawlid/meelaad.

Our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband were among Baqiyaatus Salf. They were glorious remnants of the Salfus Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon epoch. They did not spew out personal opinion – opinion unsubstantiated with Shar’i daleel. Every Fatwa of our Akaabireen is structured on solid Shar’i dalaa-il. The Prohibition of meelaad stated by the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband is unlike the fatwas of personal opinion of the muta-akh-khireen Shaafi’ Ulama. The Akaabir of Deoband were genuine Fuqaha of the kind who had flourished during the Khairul Quroon. Today moron so-called ‘deobandi’ molvis of the haatibul  lail class flaunt their jahaalat with their stupid, abortive attempts to neutralize the Fatwa of Prohibition which the Ulama of Deoband had and still resolutely propagate.

One moron, maajin cardboard molvi with his rodomontade attitude bordering on insolence and disrespect for the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband, disgorged: “In almuhanad al mufanad the bible or gospel of the aqidah of the scholars of deoband its clearly mentioned mawlood free of haraam bidat is acceptable.”  

This insolent upstart claiming to be a ‘deobandi’ lacks the rudiments of Akhlaaq. The Kitaab which he mentions so insolently is NOT the ‘bible or gospel’ of the Aqeedah of the Akaabir of Deoband. While our beliefs have been outlined and briefly explained in that Kitaab in refutation of the Barelwi sect’s slander, it is not the ‘bible and gospel’ of the Ulama of Deoband. Al-Muhannad was authored by Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri (rahmatullah alayh). The moron molvi should read Hadhrat Khalil Ahmad’s Baraahin-e-Qaatiah to gain insight and to better understand his explicit criticism of meelaad and all acts of bid’ah of the Qabar Pujaari sect.

The correct approach is to cite what Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri says in his Baraahin-e-Qaatiah. The issue at hand, is the current-day Satanist functions dubbed ‘meelaad/mawlid/moulood’. But perhaps he is too dense in his Aql to understand Baraahin-e-Qaatiah. During our student days in Jalalabad, one South African student suggested to Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) to introduce in the syllabus for the benefit of South African students, the Kitaab Baraahin-e-Qaatiah to basically equip them against the Barelwi Bid’atis when they return to South Africa. Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) commented: “To understand Baraahin-e-Qaatihah there is a need for Aql.”  We leave you at this conundrum to decide the lack of Aql in these moron youngster upstart maajin, cardboard molvis who lack the ability to distinguish between light and darkness. They  simply are bereft of Aql.

The type of ‘meelaad’ for which permissibility is accorded in Haft-e-Maslah which is attributed to Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah  alayh), the Shaikh of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband, which was his private practice and totally devoid of the slightest act of haraam, is also banned by the Akaabir Ulama. In fact, when the booklet, Haft-e-Mas’alah was read out to Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh), he commented: “Take it into the bathroom and burn it out.” He had discerned the kitaab attributed to his Shaikh as being a source of fitnah and misguidance, hence his reaction. (The bathroom was chosen for burning the book because the fire was always lit there for warming the water.)

When critics reported this episode to Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) who was at that time living in Makkah Mukarramah, he commented:

“In the Name of Allah, the Merciful; the “Most ’Merciful. We praise Him and recite Durood upon His gracious Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

This epistle is from Faqeer lmdaadullah Chisti to all friends generally.

“In these days some letters from Hindustan have reached this Faqeer. The purport of these letters was that certain people hold detestable views about Molvi Rashid Ahmad (Gangohi) Sahib. The writers of the letters wished to know what attitude they should hold about Molvi Sahib (Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi). On behalf of this faqeer (i.e. Haaji Imdaadullah Sahib) publicize that:

Molvi Rashid Ahmad Sahib is an Aalim-e-Rabbaani (an Aalim of Allah) and a Faadhil-e-Haqqaani (a true and qualified Aalim of the Deen). He is the resemblance of the Salf-e-Saaliheen (the great and pious authorities of the Deen of former times). He is an authority of the Shariat and Tareeqat (the branch of Islam dealing with spiritual purification and development). He is engaged in the Pleasure of Allah and His RasooI (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) night and day. He keeps alive the profession of imparting the knowledge of the Hadith Shareef. After Molvi Muhammad lshaq, he (MauIana Gangohi) is the one who keeps alive this knowledge. In Hindustan, Molvi Rashid Ahmad is an unique example and an outstanding personality.

Molvi Sahib (Maulana Gangohi) provides solutions to most intricate masaa’il. Approximately fifty persons qualify annually by him in knowledge of Hadith Shareef. He is totally immersed in following the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He is engrossed in the love of Rasool-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He is the proclaimer of Haqq and the hadith, “They fear not the insult of the insultors.”, aptly fits him.

He reposes total tawakkul (trust) in Allah Ta’ala and he abstains totally from bid’ah. His profession is the dissemination of the Sunnah. He transforms people of defective belief into persons of correct belief. This is his trade. His companionship (suhbat) for the people of Islam is a tremendous boon and an alchemy. Sitting in his company  induces the remembrance of Allah, and such remembrance is the sign of Men of Allah.

He is a muttaqi (pious and full of fear for Allah). He is detached from this world. He aspires for the Aakhirat. He has excelled in tasawwuf and sulook. The rich and the poor are equal in his sight. His gaze is focussed equally on all. He is a man without worldly desire and without ego.

The praise which this Faqeer (i.e. Haaji lmdaadullah) has lauded on him (Maulana Gangohi) in the book, Ziyaaul Quloob, is the Haqq. Now my love and opinion for him have increased by a far greater degree than before. I consider him (Maulana Gangohi) as a  medium for my najaat (salvation in the Aakhirat).

I declare most emphatically that he who condemns Molvi Rashid Ahmad, hurts my heart. I have two wings.

One is Molvi Qasim Naanotwi, (the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband) who has passed away, and the other is Molvi Rashid Ahmad. This remaining wing of mine is now also being made a target (for vilification) by people. 

The Aqeedah (belief) of Molvi Rashid Ahmad and myself is the same. l too regard bid’ah to be evil. In matters of the Deen whoever is the opponent of Molvi Rashid Ahmad is likewise my opponent as well as the opponent of Allah and of His Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some juhaIaa (ignoramuses) who distinguish between Tareeqat and Shariat do so because of their lack of understanding. Tareeqat minus Shariat is unacceptable in the Court of Allah Ta’ala. Cleanliness of heart is even attained by the kuffaar. The condition of the heart is like a mirror. The mirror is dirty. The dirt on the mirror can be removed with urine as well as rose water. But the difference is a question of tahaarat (Shari purification) and Najasat (impurity). The recognition, therefore, of a Wali of Allah is the Standard of ittibaa-e-Sunnah (following the Sunnah). He who follows the Sunnah is the friend of Allah. If one is a mubtadi  (bid’ati) one is absolutely false.”

Haaji Imdaadullah, Makkah Muazzamah 25th Zil-Qadh 1310

The votaries of this mawlid festival and birthday party celebration acquired from Christians, should not cite 600 and 700 and 1000 year later Shaafi’ Ulama for permissibility. They should cite the Sahaabah. They should present Daleel from the Khairul Quroon. They should structure their case on Nusoos of the Shariah, not on the personal opinions and personal practices of centuries-later Shaafi’ Ulama. Even today many misguided miscreant Hanafi Ulama, due to weakness in spirit and deficiency in Ilm, appease the Bid’atis by accepting their haraam bid’ah practices as ‘valid difference of opinion’. The views of such juhala are totally devoid of Shar’i substance.

When discussing the Shariah, they should not argue like the Yahood and Christians who have mangled and mutilated the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) beyond recognition with their personal opinions of ahwaa. Allah Ta’ala, severely reprimanding this type of attitude of the Bani Israaeel, states in the Qur’aan Shareef:

“They (the Bani Israaeel) take their scholars  and saints as gods (arbaab) besides Allah…”

The Ulama who flourished six and seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are not our ‘gods’. We do not submit to their personal opinions. Their views can never override the Shariah. What existed during the era of Khairul Quroon is the Shariah, not that which was cultivated by innovation centuries thereafter regardless of the artificial ‘beauty’ with which the bid’aat are deceptively adorned.

One moron molvi, displaying his jahaalat in the miserable attempt to peddle the idea that the senior Ulama of Deoband practised some ‘purified’ brand of moulood, avers:

“The mawlood that is free from any haraam n innovation was practised by our seniors.”

This comment is devious and dishonest. Our seniors did not practise any kind of moulood. Who were those seniors? Let the moron mention their names. Every type of moulood is bid’ah. There is no moulood free of haraam factors. Every moulood is bid’ah sayyiah. The deceptive appellation ‘bid’ah hasanah’ given to moulood functions allegedly ‘free of haraam’ is a gross error. It is a snare of shaitaan – Talbeesul Iblees. Some sincere Ulama by virtue of their short-sightedness and failure to comprehend the exact nature and meaning of bid’ah fell into the snare of deception and believed that there could be a kind of moulood free of haraam. Since moulood per se is bid’ah regardless of other haraam elements attached or unattached, it may not be described as bid’ah hasanah.

Bid’ah Hasanah is an act institution introduced to safeguard or to revive a Sunnah institution. Bid’ah Hasanah is not the innovation of a new practice of ibaadat which was unknown to the Salaf-e-Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon era. Moulood has not been introduced to revive or protect any existing Sunnah, practice or teaching of Islam. It is a pure fabrication of the nafs which has deluded even many senior Ulama, especially among the Shawaafi’ later-day Ulama who appeared on the scene many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Commenting on the deception of ‘bid’ah hasanah’ with which shaitaan has adorned bid’ah acts such as moulood, Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, the Mujjadid of Islam’s second millennium, said:

“Some people say that bid’ah is of two kinds: Hasanah and Sayyiah. Hasanah is a virtuous act which came into being after the era of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the era of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, and it is not an eliminator of any Sunnah. Sayyiah is an innovated act which eliminates Sunnah.

However, this Faqeer does not discern any beauty in any kind of bid’ah whatsoever. There is nothing discernable in it besides zulmat (spiritual darkness) and kudoorat (spiritual contamination).Whoever today sees goodness and beauty in any innovated act because of weakness of baseerat (spiritual insight), will most certainly know tomorrow (at the time of Maut), after the acquisition of sharpness in baseerat (when all veils of darkness will be removed) that the only consequence of it (bid’ah hasanah) is regret and loss.

Sayyidul Bashr, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever innovates in this Deen of ours anything which is not of it, it (and he) is mardood.” Now when something is mardood, then from whence has it acquired beauty (husn)? And, Rasulullah (alayhis salaam) said: “…………………..Verily, every innovation is bid’ah, and every bid’ah is dhalaalah (misguidance, deviation from the Haqq)”. Thus, when every innovation is bid’ah and every bid’ah is dhalaalah, then what is the meaning of husn (beauty) in bid’ah?

It is also understood from the Ahaadith that every bid’ah is the eliminator of Sunnah, and elimination is not restricted to some acts of bid’ah. Thus, every bid’ah is sayyiah (evil). Nabi (alayhis salaam) said: “Whenever a people innovates a bid’ah there is  a corresponding elimination of Sunnah.”

“When the mind is properly applied, it will become apparent that some acts which (some) Ulama and Mashaaikh have described as bid’ah hasanah, are in reality eliminators of Sunnah. ……………….Similar are all innovated acts of bid’ah. They all are excesses on the Sunnah from some angle or the other. An excess (on the Sunnah) is abrogation (cancellation) And, abrogation is an eliminator (of Sunnah). Therefore, make incumbent on yourself submission to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and be contented with following his noble Ashaab (radhiyallahu anhum), for verily they are like the Stars. Whomever of them you follow, you will be guided.`

“…………Verily, every Sunnah and bid’ah are opposites to each other. The presence of the one necessarily eliminates the other. Thus, the revival of one is the elimination of the other. How then is it proper to describe bid’ah as being hasanah when its necessary corollary is the elimination of Sunnah?………………………….At this juncture there is an objection even though this will be heavy on the majority because of the widespread prevalence of bid’ah. But, soon tomorrow (at the time of Maut) will they realize whether we are on hidaayat or they.

“It is narrated that when the Promised Al-Mahdi (Imaam Mahdi) will intend the implementation of the Deen and the revival of the Sunnah in his era, an Aalim of Madinah who is accustomed to act according to bid’ah which he believes to be hasanah and an accessory of the Deen, will say in surprise that this person (Imaam Mahdi) intends to eliminate our Deen. Then Imaam Mahdi will order him to be executed, for he (Imaam Mahdi) will regard as evil what that Aalim believes to be hasan (beautiful).”

(The following question was posed to Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani):

“Regarding the issue of reciting maulid: What is wrong in reciting the Qur’aan and reciting qaseedas (na’ts) and praises with a beautiful voice? Why is the prohibition in this case?” Hadhrat Mujaddid responded:

“It has generated in the heart of this Faqeer that as long as this avenue (of moulood) is not closed totally, the maniacs (of the nafs) will not desist from it. If we grant a little leeway, it will lead to considerable (indulgence).”

“Thus, the fortunate one is he who enlivens a Sunnah from the abandoned Sunan, and he kills a bid’ah from the prevalent bid’ah. This is the era heralding a thousand years since the era of the Noblest of Mankind, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Signs and Indications of Qiyaamah and the Impending Hour have become manifest. The Sunnah has become hidden due to the recession of the era of  Nubuwwah, and bid’ah has become prominent as a consequence of the widespread prevalence of falsehood.

The dissemination of bid’ah culminates in the destruction of the Deen. Honouring bid’ah leads to the demolition of Islam. Perhaps you have heard the Hadith: “Whoever honours a man of bid’ah, verily he has aided in the demolition of Islam.” Therefore, it is only appropriate to apply the focus fully and to make the utmost effort to disseminate a Sunnat from the Sunan, and to eliminate a bid’ah from the bid’aat. It is imperative to establish the commands of Islam at all times, especially during these times of the weakness of Islam. This is reliant on the dissemination of the Sunnah and  the elimination of bid’ah.

It appears that some of the predecessors (such as the Shaafi’ Ulama of the later eras) had discerned ‘beauty’, hence they approved of some such acts. But this Faqeer does not agree with them in this issue. I do not see any beauty in even a single act of bid’ah. I discern in it nothing but darkness and contamination.

“May Allah Ta’ala grant the Ulama of this age the taufeeq to totally refrain from describing bid’ah as hasanah, and may Allah Ta’ala grant them the taufeeq to abstain from issuing fatwas condoning it even if the act of bid’ah (acts such as moulood) appears to them glittering like the morning light, for verily the deceptions of shaitaan are massive in acts besides the Sunnah.

“In former times due to the power of Islam, the darkness of bid’ah was overshadowed. Perhaps some of that darkness which was overshadowed (by the radiance of Islam) appeared to be nooraani in the rays of Islam’s Noor. Thus, this imagination led to the opinion of husn despite there being absolutely no husn (in the acts of bid’ah) in reality. However, in the current age Islam has become weak. It may not now be imagined that the darkness of bid’ah could be tolerated, hence it is not proper now to apply the fatwa of the Mutaqaddimeen and the Muta-akh-khireen. Verily, for every era there are different ahkaam.” [Al-Fathur Rahmaani]

Hadhrat Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) was the Mujaddid who appeared at the commencement of Islam’s second millennium. Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that this Deen will be purified by a Mujaddid whom Allah Ta’ala will dispatch at the beginning of every century. The few extracts (above) reveal the gross error of those who have passed off moulood as ‘bid’ah hasanah’. They all are the victims of shaitaan’s Talbeesul Iblees snares. Citing Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, the following appears in Fataawa Rashidiyyah of Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh):

“Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani states in his Maktubaat: “If the Sufis of the age act justly and view the weakness of Islam and the prevalence of falsehood, it will be incumbent on them not to follow their shuyookh in acts besides the Sunnah, and that they should not regard fabricated  acts as their Deen with the excuse that it was the amal of their shuyookh, for verily, following the Sunnah is the only Way and the repository of goodness and barakaat. In following anything other than the Sunnah is danger upon danger. And, it is on the Messenger to only deliver the Message.”

The following are more citations from Fataawa Rashidiyyah:

> “The customary act of moulood is bid’ah and haraam. Speak about Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) no one forbids this. But do so as was practised during Quroon-e-Thalaathah (Khairul Quroon). Neither were there moulood functions nor qiyaam (standing) when Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned. All of us have been  commanded to follow the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. We have not been commanded to follow the Khalf  (the later era Ulama whom the deviates quote for giving credibility to bid’ah).

> “Maulana Abdur Rahmaan Al-Maghribi Al-Hanafi, says in his Fataawa: “Verily, moulid is bid’ah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Khulafa-e -Raashideen and the Aimmah Mujtahideen neither advocated it not practised it.”

> Allaamah Ibnul Haaj who was among the very senior authorities (of the Shariah) says in Mudkhal: “From among the many bid’aat which have been innovated, with the belief that it is from among the great acts of ibaadaat and the projection of the shi-aar of Islam, is moulood which they do in the month of Rabiul Awwal. It is a conglomeration of bid’ah and acts of haraam……Even if it (the moulid) is without these evils and only food is served with the intention of moulid, and brothers are invited to participate, and the function is free from all the (haraam) mentioned earlier, then too it is bid’ah merely on the basis of the intention (that the function is moulid), for verily, it is an accretion in the Deen. It is not of the acts of the Salaf of the past. It has not been narrated that any of them had intended moulid. We follow the Salaf. Thus, for us is permissible only that which was permissible for them.”

> “Maulana Naseeruddeen Al-Adwi Ash-Shaafi’, in response to a question said: “It should not be practised because it has not been narrated from the Salaf-e-Saalih. It was innovated after the era of Quroon-e-Thalaathah in a wicked age. We do not follow the Khalaf (those of the later eras) in matters which the Salaf had abstained from. Following them is adequate. What then is the need for innovation?”

> “Shaikhul Hanaabilah Sharfuddeen (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The function of moulid (celebrating the birthday) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which some of the wealthy practise every year, along with its evil acts, it by itself is a bid’ah which was innovated by one who follows his lust, and who does not know what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded.” [Al-Qaulul Mu’tamad]

> “Qaadhi Shihaabuddeen Daulatabaadi (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Fataawa Tuhfatul Qudhaat when asked about maulid: “It should not be held because it is an innovation, and every innovation is dhalaalah,  and every dhalaalah will be in the Fire. That what the juhhaal  (ignoramuses) do in the beginning  of every Rabiul Awwal is baseless. They  stand when the birth of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) is mentioned, and they think that his Rooh (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) is present. Their thinking  is baatil. In fact this belief is shirk.  The Aimmah have prohibited such acts.” [Extracts from Fataawa Rashidiyyah]

Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Fataawa Rashidiyyah:

> In response to a questioner who had mentioned: “I have heard that your Shaikh, Haaji Imdaadullah would also listen to moulood.”, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Refer to Baraaheen-e-Qaatiah for a detailed elaboration of moulood gatherings. Hujjat cannot be made with the statements and acts of the Mashaaikh. On the contrary, Hujjat is with the statements and acts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the statements of the Mujtahideen (rahmatullah alayhim).

Hadhrat Naseeruddeen Chiraagh Dehlwi (quddisa sirruhu) said that when someone would cite as Hujjat an act of his Shaikh, Sultaan Nizaamuddeen (quddisa sirruhu), he (Hadhrat Naseeruddeen) would say: ‘The action of the Shaikh is not Hujjat.’ Hadhrat Sultaanul Auliya approved of this response.” [Fataawa Rashidiyyah, page 111]

On page 132, he says: “Since this function (of moulid) had not existed during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) nor during the ages of the Taabi’een and Tabe Taabi’een and the age of  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen it is bid’ah.


Unlike the Shariats of the Ambiya who preceded Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which had not been bestowed with the blessing of Divine Protection, the Shariah of Khaatamul Ambiya, Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has been offered Allah’s Protection against all satanic intrusions from both without and within. Thus, the Qur’aan Hakeem states:

“We have revealed the Thikr, and most certainly We are its Protectors.”

With the dual agencies of the Ulama-e-Haqq and the genuine Huffaaz, has Allah Azza Wa Jal protected His Deen from the kind of mutilation and metamorphosis to which all previous Shariats have been subjected by their respective followers. The Office of the Ulama-e-Haqq has been divinely established to guard the meanings and the laws of the Deen, while the institution of Huffaaz guards the text of the Qur’aan Majeed.

Every man of Ilm is aware that the Dalaa-il of the Shariah are ensconced in Four Edifices, namely, Kitaabullaah, Sunnatur Rasool, Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas-e- Shar’i. It should therefore be understood that any person, especially if he professes to be a scholar, who attempts to accord Shar’i recognition, credibility and acceptance to an institution, tenet, practice, custom, belief, ideology, etc. has  to incumbently structure his proposal on the basis of the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Any self-professing ‘scholar’ such as these pseudo-deobandies who are on a hike to bamboozle the ignorant and unwary with the names of recognized Ulama who have erred in their views, who seeks to ascribe Shar’i status to the personal opinions and the faasid qiyaas of some Ulama without structuring his case on  mthe Divine Rock of Dalaail-e-Ar’ba’ah, is a moron par bunkum. In other words, a plain jaahil whose ideas excreted by his brain are fit for the sewerage drain.

That the Proof of Haqq is not the name or view of a Shaikh/Aalim, is the following unequivocal statements of the Akaabir Authorities of the Shariah:

“He who takes (as daleel) the rarities (and obscure views) of the Ulama, has made his exit from Islam.”  _Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani

“Haaji Sahib (i.e. Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah, the Shaikh of the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband) is not the name of any Shar’i Daleel. Therefore to mention Haaji Saahib in relation to Shar’i issues is baseless.” [Fataawa Rashidiyyah]

While there are numerous similar declarations of the Authorities, these two will suffice for this brief treatise.

Thus, just as ‘Haaji Saahib’ is not among the Dalaa-il of the Shariah, so too, are the Shaafi’ Ulama or the Ulama of any  Math-hab of the Muta-akhireen, not among the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Ulama such as Ibn Hajar Haitami, Ibn Hajar Asqalaani, Qaadhi Iyaadh, Sakhaawi, Suyuti and others,  (rahmatullaah alayhim), who appeared on the Islamic horizon many centuries, even a 1000 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), are not the designations for Shar’i Dalaa-il. Their personal opinions unbacked by Shar’i Dalaa-il, may not be hoisted as Shar’i Ahkaam. And, this has greater emphasis when their personal opinions are in flagrant conflict with the Nusoos of the Shariah.

Great Ulama too err and are known to terribly slip and commit such blunders which cannot be  reconciled with the Shariah, and which leave one aghast. Such views shall be set aside without harshly criticizing the Aalim of Haqq who has erred in his understanding. Such errors area due to a variety of factors which shall not be dealt with at this juncture.

Consider Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) who is an acknowledged Aalim Rabbaani, Aarif Billaah, Hujjatullaah, and among the greatest Stars of Uloom, Wara and Taqwa produced by Daarul Uloom Deoband. In the initial phase of his life he too had grievously erred by believing that meelaad minus the haraam factors is permissible. Thus, the kitaab, Haft Mas’alah, attributed to Hadhrat Haaji Sahib, was actually written by Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). He read it to Haaji Sahib who approved of it. However, after exchanging several letters with Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) – letters in which the discussion of participating in meelaad was elaborately discussed with solid Shar’i Dalaa-il from both parties, Hadhrat Thanvi ultimately conceded his error and retracted his opinion of permissibility. In fact, in one letter, the effect of Hadhrat Gangohi’s reprimand was: It is surprising for an Aalim of your status to utter such drivel.

Ulama who are genuine Ulama are not daunted by the names of great Ulama when others seek to cite their blunders as hujjat. The rulings of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Khairul Quroon are Hujjat for us, not the personal opinions of Ulama who appeared many centuries after the perfection announced in the  Qur’aan Majeed:

“This Day have I perfected for you your Deen, and completed for you My Favour, and have chosen Islam for you as Deen.”

Furthermore, let the moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis understand that there is Ijma’ of all Authorities of the Shariah, including all those Ulama whom they have mentioned as condoners of meelaad, that the current forms of mawlid/meelaad are bid’ah and haraam. There is not a single one of the Shaafi’ Ulama whose names the morons have cited, who has ever claimed mawlid in general is permissible.

According to them, all the vices associated with meelaad programmes and functions are haraam. The accompaniment of these evil elements renders mawlid haraam and bid’ah even according to those Shaafi’ Ulama who have claimed, albeit erroneously, permissibility for such mawlid functions which are devoid of the haraam khurafaat which bedevil each and every mawlid function wherever it is held on earth. Just view the advertising pamphlet of the current carnival-type mawlid function which is being organized by the Syrian deviate, one Shaikh Ninowy and his clique of singers and stage performers.

With all these haraam elements silhouetted in the background, these pseudo-deobandi molvis should hang their heads in shame if they still have any vestige of Imaani haya, for supporting mawlid with the opinions of the senior Shaafi’ Ulama who never had ever condoned the Ninowy  type of haraam, Satanism perpetrated in the name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). By disseminating the  statements of the Shaafi Ulama whose opinions of jawaaz apply to other types of functions in a different setting, did these morons serve the Cause of Haqq? Did they serve the Cause of Haqq which our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had resolutely advanced? Did they serve the Cause of the Sunnah?

What will the ordinary masses understand from such statements of jawaaz juxtaposed at this time in the month of Rabiul Awwal with its prevalence of absolutely haraam, shaitaani functions of meelaad/mawlid? Lamenting the dearth of Aql in the Ulama of his time, Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh), pouring out his heart, said:

“May Allah Ta’ala grant the Ulama of this age the taufeeq to totally refrain from describing bid’ah as hasanah, and may Allah Ta’ala grant them the taufeeq to abstain from issuing fatwas condoning it even if the act of bid’ah (acts such as moulood) appears to them glittering like the morning light, for verily the deceptions of shaitaan are massive in acts besides the Sunnah.

One only needs to be just to understand the zulm which these moron molvis are inflicting on the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by disgorging the flotsam of their compound jahaalat

The custom of moulood did not have even an existence in the imagination of the Salfus Saaliheen. From the inception of Islam until well after completion of the sixth century of the Hijri era was there no existence for this bid’ah practice even in the imagination of the Ummah. It was only after the sixth century that this bid’ah sayyiah was fabricated by an evil king aided by a faasiq molvi. Ibn Hajar Asqalaani (rahmatullah alayh) comments on the founder of this bid’ah:

He was extremely vituperative towards the Aimmah and Ulama of the Salaf. He was a man with a khabeeth (filthy, evil) tongue. He was a moron, extremely arrogant and short-sighted. In Deeni matters he was very lax. ……..Allaamah Ibn Najjaar said: ‘I have seen the consensus of people on his falsehood and weakness.” [Lisaanul Meezaan].

Allaamah Ahmad Bin Muhammad Misri-Al-Maaliki said: “The Ulama of the Four Math-habs are unanimous in their condemnation of this act (of mawlid).”  [Al-Qoulul Mu’tamad] 

The baseless opinions of some Ulama are of no significance since opinion minus Dalaa-il from the Nusoos of the Shariah, are the effects of men’s  minds. Such opinions may not be passed off as ahkaam of the Shariah which is the product of Wahi, not the disgorgement of the minds of men. That there is not a single Nass of the Shariah which can be presented to substantiate the bid’ah of meelaad, is well borne out by the statement of even Jalaluddeen Suyuti (d.911 Hijri) whom the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and the pseudo-deobandi moron molvis cite as a basis for permissibility of mawlid/meelaad. Despite having spoken in praise of mawlid, Imaam Suyuti is constrained to concede: “There is no Nass for it (for its permissibility). But there is qiyaas (reasoning).”

This is a clear admission of the total absence of daleel from Kitaabullaah, Sunnah of the Rasool and Ijma’. He mentions ‘qiyaas’, but regrettably and lamentably the qiyaas he presents in support of this bid’ah is faasid  (corrupt) and devoid of Shar’i substance. It is indeed surprising how even senior Ulama can slip and fall into blunder. Despite them being fully aware of the irrefutable fact that for six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) there was no existence of this bid’ah, and that the originator of this evil bid’ah was a faasiq king aided and abetted by a faasiq molvi, they still fell victim to such a grievous error which due to its wide prevalence was accepted as valid by later Ulama.

Indeed, when Ulama adopt  silence in the face of bid’ah and munkar, these evils become entrenched in the Ummah. With the passage of time people, including Ulama and Mashaaikh become desensitized, the notoriety and villainy of the evil then appear insignificant to them. And, this rings the bells for Divine Punishment on a universal scale. There was a time in India, when even in the homes of reliable Mashaaikh and Ulama, the Masnoon Salaam had receded into oblivion. Even in the homes of genuine Mashaaikh some customary form of salutation was in vogue, hence when Hadhrat Sayyid Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) arrived at the home of Shah Abdul Azeez and proclaimed loudly from outside: “ASSALAAMU ALAIKUM!”, the Shah, with pleasant surprise said: “Who is this Reviver of the Sunnah? There was a need for a robust Aalim of Haqq of the calibre of Sayyid Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) to revive and establish the Sunnah in a society raked with bid’ah sayyiah to such an extent that even the Thiqaaat among the Ulama and Mashaaikh were silenced by desensitization. The very same evil desensitization had overtaken many Ulama who had simply accepted the bid’ah of moulood. With much naivety they soothed their conscience with a variety of utterly baseless arguments and interpretations wholly unfit of Ulama.

Having lapped up the spurious and stupid arguments of the Barelwi bid’atis, the pseudo-deobandi moron, cardboard molvis, also present Ibn Hajar Haitami’s view in substantiation of meelaad without understanding that just like ‘Haaji Imdaadullah Sahib’ is not the name of a Shar’i Daleel, so too is Haitami not the name of a Shar’i Daleel. Besides this fact, Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) never condoned the type of flagrant and immoral mawlid festivals and coon-funfare functions prevalent nowadays everywhere where such haraam merrymaking parties are held. Denouncing the evil of haraam meelaads (haraam according to Haitami), he says in Fataawa Hadithiyyah:

“…There is no doubt in the fact that the first kind of (meelaad) functions (in which haraam activities take place) are prohibited and unlawful on the basis of the Shariat’s well-known  principle: ‘Elimination of harms has priority over acquisition of benefits.”

Therefore, if it is known that even a single Shar’i evil will be taking place in any meelaad function, then it will be disobedience to Allah Ta’ala to participate in it. He will be sinful (for participating). Assuming that the participant engaged in a good deed at the function, it will not compensate for the evil found at the function………Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded total abstention from all kinds of evil deeds. Hence, there is no permission for indulging in evil, be it negligible.”

Although Ibn Hajar Haithami (rahmatullah alayh) is in grievous error for condoning meelaad functions which are totally devoid of the current haraam practices and evils which bedevil every mawlid merrymaking festival prevalent nowadays, he nevertheless categorically proclaims haraam all these shaitaani mawlid carnivals for which the pseudo-deobandi juhhaal molvis are excreting stupid arguments gleaned from the Barelwi Bid’atis.

Also in Fataawa Hadithiyyah, Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) states very explicitly: “Many people stand up at the time of the mention of Rasulullah’s birth during the meelaad function. This is bid’ah. There is no Hadith, etc. confirming this act.” Qiyaam (standing) is in fact a fundamental act in the mawlid’s of today. The well-known kitaab, Ghaayatul Maraam of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah explicitly states:

“Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) attends every meelaad function. It is therefore Fardh to stand in honour. The one who does not stand is a kaafir.”

Providing even the slightest leeway for permissibility of this bid’ah as the pseudo-deobandi morons do, is to support the prevalent kinds of haraam, evil mawlid functions which are believed to have greater importance than Salaat in certain quarters.

The first among the great and illustrious Ulama to have written a refutation of the bid’ah of meelaad was Allaamah Shaikh Taajuddeen Faakihaani (rahmatullah alayh). In refutation of this bid’ah sayyiah, he writes in his Al-Mawrid fil Kalaam ma-a Amalil Mawlid:

“I know not of any basis for this mawlid, neither from the Kitaab (Qur’aan) nor from the Sunnah. Nor is it narrated from those Ulama (Salfus Saaliheen) who were the Authorities of the Deen, and who had supported with diligence the narrations of the Salfus Saaliheen.

This mawlid is bid’ah. The Ahl-e-Baatil had originated it, and carnal lusts of the worshippers of the stomach have nourished it. ………Neither did the Sahaabah nor the Pious Taabi-een practise this (bid’ah of mawlid). And, if I am questioned about it in the Divine Presence (on the Day of Qiyaamah), I shall give this same response.

It is not mustahab nor even mubah (permissible) because an innovation in the Deen cannot be permissible. This is the Ijma’ of  the Muslimeen. Thus mawlid is either Makrooh (Tahrimi) or Haraam.

Allaamah Hasan Ibn Ali (rahmatullah alayh) states in  Tareeqah Radde-Ahl-e-Bid’ah: “The meelaad function which jaahil sufis had innovated, there is no basis for it in the Shariah. On the contrary, it is bid’ah sayyiah consisting of numerous evils.”

Shaikh Muhammad Abu Bakr Makhzumi Maaliki (rahmatullah alayh) states in Manhal Sharh Raafi: “Among the evil acts of abomination and evil prohibitions in this age is the function of mawlid. Ummats of the previous Ambiya were destroyed for innovating new acts in the Deen.”

Allaamah Alaauddeen Ibn Ismaaeel Ash-Shaafi (rahmatullah  alayh) says in his Sharhul Ba’th Wan Nushoor: “Mawlid is bid’ah.  Its perpetrator is deserving of criticism.”

In Shariah Ilaahiyyah it is said:  “Undoubtedly, an evil bid’ah which is prevalent in countries and cities is the mawlid function. It has no basis in the Dalaa-il of the Shariah, not in the Qur’aan and not in the Hadith.”

Innumerable Ulama who were Authorities of the Deen had  criticized moulood, declaring it bid’ah sayyiah. All of them stated their case on the basis of the Dalaa-il of the Shariah while those Ulama who appeared many centuries after the era of Khairul Quroon condoned this bid’ah purely on the basis of personal opinion without being able to present a single daleel from the Shariah. They simply held on to narrations of general import and submitted these to personal opinion, conjecturing what they wished to imagine. Furthermore, the permission which they had baselessly opined was restricted to such mawlid functions which were devoid of the many munkaraat (evil acts) which incumbently accompany all moulood carnival parties and functions organized in this day and age.

Mawlid is not simply one isolated act of bid’ah. Its villainy brings about the vilest form of mutilation of the Deen. Hadhrat Bakr Bin Abdullah Al-Muzni (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “My Intercession is confirmed for my entire Ummah except for bid’atis.” According to the Hadith, bid’atis are Kilaabun Naar (Dogs of the Fire).

The Ahl-e-Bid’ah and now even the pseudo-deobandi juhhaal molvis who present the names of Ulama of the 7th— 10 centuries in their abortive bid to substantiate validity for the satanic bid’ah of moulood failed to comprehend their own stupidity for having failed to cite the name of even a single Sahaabi, Taabi’een and Tab-e-Taabi’een. They miserably inflict blindness on themselves by believing that there was no six century vacuum prior to the innovation of their haraam bid’ah sayyiah mawlid/meelaad carnival function. The fossilization of their Aql and calcification of their Baatin do not allow them to understand that a function which has no trace whatsoever in the Khairul Quroon, and which came into vogue only more than six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) can never be accorded the status of ibaadat. It is one of the vilest forms of Shar’i mutilation and interpolation.

Even Ulama of Ibn Hajar’s and Suyuti’s status have fallen by the wayside and had failed to understand that the employment of Qiyaas to confirm permissibility for an entirely new innovation in the form of ‘ibaadat’ which did not exist during the Khairul Quroon era while the raison d’etre (Illat) cited by them did exist, is Faasid Qiyaas. The Illat of love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was never more conspicuous and more profound than its presence in the age of the Sahaabah and the subsequent eras, yet these great and illustrious Devotees of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not innovate any birthday celebration practices in Rasulullah’s honour. Any qiyaas which substantiates an act which is glaringly bid’ah is undoubtedly, faasid (corrupt) and baseless, regardless of its author. The claim of it being Mustahab, i.e. the type of mawlid devoid of the rubbish haraam khuraafaat associated with the carnival functions of this day, is erroneous and surprising for men of Ilm to make. The Ulama who have made this spurious claim had failed to apply their minds, for even a Mandoob/Mustahab act, there is the need for Shar’i Daleel. It is said in Raddul Muhtaar:Nudb is a Shar’i Hukm. Daleel for it is imperative.”

We are most fortunate that Allah Ta’ala has demarcated for us the limits of obedience which is owed to the Ulama. In this regard, the Qur’aan declares:

“They (Bani Israaeel) took their ahbaar (molvis and shaikhs) and their ruhbaan (sufis) as gods besides Allah….”

The errors and slips of the Ulama portend the gravest danger for the Ummah. Precisely for this reason did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) say: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the Aimmah Mudhilleen (Ulama who misguide).”  

In another Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I fear for my Ummah three acts: The slip of an Aalim, the disputing of a munaafiq with the Qur’aan and the denial of Qadr (Taqdeer).”   
Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Do you know what will demolish Islam? The slip of the Aalim, the disputing of the munaafiq using the Qur’aan and the hukm (fatwa) of the Aimmah Mudhilleen demolish Islam.”

Of the category of dangerous slips by the Ulama is the slip of Allaamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) who is reported to have said: “If in this (mawlid) there was only abasement of shaitaan and the happiness of the people of the Muslimeen, then it would suffice (for permissibility).”    Sakhaawi either did not apply his mind or he was in some state of devotional ecstasy or he was overwhelmed by the widespread prevalence of this bid’ah, hence his intellectual discernment became clouded or this statement has been wrongly attributed to him. Far from bid’ah being an abasement for shaitaan, it is an act which is exceedingly delightful to him. Bid’ah brings to him such happiness which knows no bounds. All acts of bid’ah innovated into the Deen are the inspirations and adornments of Iblees. Obviously he will be the happiest when the Muslim Ummah indulges in bid’ah. Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Iblees loves bid’ah more than what he loves sin.” Muslims repent for the sins they comment, but not for bid’ah. There are two reasons why they do not repent for bid’ah:

(1) They believe that their bid’ah is ibaadat, so why should they repent?  

(2) Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Ta’ala deprives every bid’ati from making Taubah.

As for the “happiness of Muslims” is concerned, only the juhala and the slaves of lust derive happiness from bid’ah, fun-festivals, merrymaking parties and birthday celebrations emulated from the Nasaara.

A graver and incredible slip of Allaamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) is his observation: “The People of the Cross (the Christians) have made the birthday of their Nabi (in fact their ‘god’) their great day of eid (i.e. Christmas day). The People of Islam are more deserving of honouring (their Nabi by means of birthday celebration).”

This is indeed a shocking and lamentable slip committed by an Aalim of the Deen. His observation confirms that mawlid is in emulation of the Christian’s festival of Christmas. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever emulates a people is of them.”   

He also said that Muslims will imitate the Yahood and Nasaara in the minutest detail right into the “lizard’s hole”. Mullah Ali Qaari, refuting the blunder of Sakhaawi, says in his Al-Mouridir Rawi fil Moulidin Nabawi: “I say that we have been commanded (by Rasulullah–sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to oppose the Ahl-e-Kitaab.” 

After the Conquest of Makkah when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) set of on the Jihad Campaign of Hunain, they passed by a tree known to the Mushrikeen by the name, Zaat Anwaat. They used to hang their weapons on this tree, gather around it and pass the time. It was not a tree of worship. They used to halt here for a short while. This tree became a landmark for the Mushrikeen.

Among those who were with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were some new Muslims who were as yet ignorant of the tenets and principles of the Shariah. They said: “O Rasulullah! Establish for us a Zaat Anwaat just as they (the Mushrikeen) have a Zaat Anwaat.” Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said  in surprise: “Subhaanallaah! This is just as the nation of Musaa (alayhissalaam) said: ‘Make for us a god (idol of worship) just as they (the idolaters) have gods (idols of worship.  – Surah A’raaf, Aayat 138). I take oath by Him in Whose Power is my life! You (Muslimeen) will most certainly follow the ways of those before you (i.e. the Yahood and Nasaara).” [Tirmizi]

Sakhaawi’s slip is of this dimension and gravity. But, we do not take our Ulama as “gods besides Allah”. Thus, in addition to mawlid being bid’ah is Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. Its hurmat is therefore compounded. Zaat Anwaat was not an idol. The kuffaar used it merely as a halting place, and they hung their weapons on this tree while they relaxed. However, since it had become a famous landmark for them, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) rejected the request on the basis of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. In fact, he likened the request to the request of Bani Israaeel who had asked Nabi Musaa (alayhisalaam) to make for them an idol when they had seen some idolaters worshipping idols. Although the element of worship was not in Zaat Anwaat, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) abhorred the request of the new Muslims because of the element of Tashabbuh.

From Rasulullah’s abhorrence for Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar the ludicrousness and abhorrence of Sakhaawi’s justification of mawlid (i.e. the mawlid minus all the haraam paraphernalia which are associated with today’s haraam meelaad carnival festivals) can be better understood.

Thus, regardless of whose name is cited, be he the greatest Allaamah of the age, his view, if unsubstantiated by the Dalaa-il of the Shariah will never enjoy Shar’i acceptance and credibility, and if in conflict with the Shariah, will be mardood. All those Ulama who have accorded credibility to moulood functions have gravely slipped and erred despite their permissibility being related to only such functions which are devoid of any munkaraat. The very festival of mawlid devoid of munkaraat is bid’ah sayyiah. It is a vile act given the  form  of ibaadat. But Ibaadat was only that which was taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah, and this has reached us via the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the genuine Fuqaha. Whilst Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and the others are accepted and authentic Ulama, they are nowhere near the status of the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon. They had missed that golden era of Islam by many centuries, and were influenced by the widespread prevalence of the bid’ah of mawlid.

Again it should be emphasized that the permissibility attributed to the likes of Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh), narrated by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah, Ahl-e-Hawa and lately by the moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis is absolutely no daleel for the votaries of mawlid because the function for which Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and others have predicated permissibility is something widely different from the carnival for which the miscreants of today are claiming permissibility. The two acts while having the same designation,  viz., moulood/mawlid/meelaad, are different in entirety. The difference is as divergent as east and west or heaven and hell. Even those Ulama are unanimous in condemning the type of Satanism of the age which is termed ‘mawlid’. There is not a single name which the morons can present in support of the satanic mawlid festivals and haraam parties of these times.

The arguments of all the other Shaafi’ Ulama who arrived on the Islamic scene many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and who are presented as ‘daleel’ by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and  pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi rabble are similarly spurious and utterly bereft of Shar’i evidence. Since this treatise is only a brief response to the flotsam disgorged by the pseudo-deobandi miscreants, we shall by pass the drivel of this train which has been derailed from the Straight Course of the Shariah.

(1) One of these jaahil pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis, in a stupid cell phone message, alleged in support of the bid’ah sayyiah moulood:

“yes some of seniors say its fine if practiced correctly In al muhanad al mufanad the bible or gospel of the aqidah of the scholars of deoband its clearly mentioned mawlood free of haraam n bidat is acceptable Others say cautious view is not to do bec it will lead to other wrongs”

This insolent moron, firstly lacks understanding of the essential rudiments of adab. Although he professes to be a ‘deobandi’, he insolently refers to the kitaab, the  name of which he is unable to even pronounce correctly, as the ‘gospel and bible’ of the Ulama of Deoband. The name of the Kitaab is Al-Muhannad alal Mufannnad. In this Kitaab, Hadhrat Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri (rahmatullah alayh) answers a list of questions posed by the then Muqallid Ulama of Haramain Shareefain. It is not Deoband’s text book of Aqeedah.

The moron appears not to have the haziest idea of the meaning of mawlood/mawlid/moulood/meelaad. It is not the view of the Ulama of Deoband that any type moulood function is permissible, “if practiced correctly”. The moron should define a mawlood function which is practiced correctly. What type of function is that in relation to the Ulama of Deoband. What meelaad is to the Barelwi and other juhala is well-known. But what is the meaning of a moulood function as far as the Ulama of Deoband are concerned? If the moron had known, he would not have spoken drivel.

Every moulood function organized on specific dates or held as a birthday celebration in ‘honour’ of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regardless of ‘correct’ or incorrect observances is bid’ah according to the Ulama of Deoband. Even if such a function is without music, and without the conglomeration of other haraam factors which are compulsorily associated with meelaad festivals, then too it remains bid’ah. What is permissible according to theUlama of Deoband is Thikr-e-Wilaadat bila Quyood, i.e. speaking or lecturing about the events surrounding the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in general, without stipulating a day in Rabiul Awwal and without organizing a function to celebrate the birthday of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Ulama of Deoband explicitly stipulate for permissibility of bayaans on the birth of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) bila quyood (without the attachment of stipulations). It should be a normal bayaan as all other discourses without the accompaniment of any fanfare and festival. For the benefit of the moron and his ilk, thikr-e-wilaadat bila quyood has absolutely no resemblance with moulood festivals, even with such festivals bereft of the other haraam elements which are incumbently attached to the haraam meelaad parties.

The moron then says in his stupid cell phone message:

“In our context bec it has become synonymous wit haraam an erroneous views better is not to do it”

The atrocity of the terminology displays the atrocity of the heart and brain. Despite the moron conceding that the moulood functions in vogue are haraam, he deemed it appropriate to broadcast comments to dent the stance of prohibition of the Ulama of Deoband who have steadfastly prohibited all moulood functions.There are no such functions which come minus haraam. Did the moron acquit himself with wisdom with his shaitaani attempt to weaken the stance of the Akaabir of Deoband? Does he display foresight in spuriously arguing that there is scope of permissibility?

The moron, pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi says in his message:

“The mawlood that is free from any haraam n innovation was practised by our seniors So no point in pretending it does not exist.”

This is a blatant and a foul lie and slander uttered against the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband. They did not practise any type of moulood functions. Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), in the beginning of his Ilmi career, had grievously erred by attending such moulood functions where haraam was not perpetrated. After his lecture, he would leave. Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) severely objected and reprimanded him for even such cautious participation. Finally, Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) conceding his error abandoned attending any type of moulood function. The claim that the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband did not participate in any moulood functions is not a ‘pretence’. It is a fact of which the moron is ignorant.

Again the moron in his haraam cell phone message alleges:

“U could brush it under the carpet but when the opposition present it to u wit referenced citations u gonna be knocked off ur feet”

The brainless moron molvi does not realize what his mouth excretes. There had never ever been any attempt by any of the Ulama-e-Haqq right from the inception of this meelaad Satanism from the seventh century when it was innovated, to ‘brush the bid’ah rot under the carpet.’ The Ulama-e-Haqq in every generation, in general, and the Ulama of Deoband in particular in the last and this centuries, have confronted head-on all kinds of bid’ah including the Satanism of moulood.

Innumerable kutub have been written by the Ulama-e-Haqq from the very era of the inception of this meelaad innovation by the faasiq king of Irbal. In every age the Ulama have refuted in their kutub the Satanism of this bid’ah. The Ulama of Deoband have written numerous kutub refuting in detail every spurious argument proffered by the votaries of this bid’ah sayyiah in defence of their haraam meelaad festivals.

We fail to understand how the moron has concluded his idea of the issue having been swept under the carpet. It appears that his jahaalat of the history underlying moulood bid’ah has constrained him to make this stupid averment. Whatever trash he has spewed up has been gleaned from the stupid articles written by the Qabar Pujaari Barelwi sect. If the moron had made a proper research of this issue by studying the Kutub which the Ulama-e-Haqq had written, he would then not have so stupidly advertised the density of his sensorial faculty.

He further says: “Fact of the matter is it is a matter of diff of opinion.” This too is a blatant lie based on the moron’s stupidity. There is absolutely no difference in the ranks of the Ulama-Haqq in the prohibition of all moulood functions which are currently in vogue. Even those Ulama who believe erroneously that meelaad without the rubbish khuraafaat is permissible, are in unanimity with the Ulama who proclaim current moulood functions haraam. Even those who differed with the prohibition of even such mouloods minus the haraam rubbish factors, are constrained to concede that there is no Daleel from the Salaf for validating this function. Thus, even Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) is compelled by the reality to say in his Fataawa: “The act of moulood shareef has not been narrated from any of the Salfus Saalih of the Three Noble Ages. Verily, it was innovated thereafter.” Mullah Ali Qaari has narrated this fatwa of Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) in his Al-Mauridir Rawi fil Moulidin Nabawi.

Even Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) who inclined to excesses and faasid qiyaas in this sphere, was constrained to concede in his Fatwa, narrated by Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh) in his Husnul Maqsid fil Amalil Moulid: “The basis of the Moulid amal is bid’ah which has not been narrated from anyone of the Salfus Saalih of Quroon-e-Thalaathah.”

The moron states: “Al-Imam as-Suyuti authored an entire treatise on the recommendation of the mawlid celebration.”

The 10th century Imaam Suyuti’s treatise is simply one mass of personal opinion. It does not contain a single Shar’i daleel. The case for permissibility of even such functions devoid of rubbish could not be sustained by Imaam Suyuti in terms of Shar’i Dalaa-il, hence he was constrained to concede that only qiyaas can be used. But, as mentioned earlier, the qiyaas used for meelaad is faasid. Imaam Suyuti’s treatise is not the Qur’aan nor the Hadith nor the Ijma’ of the Ummah.

The moron molvi, in his abortive haraam attempt to provide stupid cover for the current day satanic meelaad functions, states: “al-Imam an-Nawawi’s shaykh, head of the famous Syrian school, Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah, the great Shafi`i jurist and traditionist, Abdur Rahman ibn Ismail, well-known as Abu Shamah. He states in his Risalah,

“And among the best innovated actions in these times are those actions that take place every year coinciding with the birth of the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) such as charity, good deeds, personal beautification, joy, and so forth, as they speak of love and reverence for the beloved Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam)…”

This is not a Shar’i daleel for innovating ‘ibaadat’. Ibaadat consists of only the practices imparted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). A practice innovated by an evil king in the seventh century is not ibaadat, and may not be promoted as such. Abu Shaamah, regardless of his status has grossly erred in his  personal opinion unsubstantiated by any Shar’i daleel.

Charity and good deeds are valid throughout the year. Stipulating specific days without Shar’i basis for charity is bid’ah. Charity does not require anniversary celebrations in emulation of the Yahood and Nasaara. The Sahaabah never deemed it appropriate to practise charity and good deeds on the occasion of Rasulullah’s birthday despite their profound love and devotion for Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Shariah has appointed the Day of Jumuah and the Days of Eid for personal adornment, joy and so forth. The Shariah has not set aside Rasulullah’s day of birth for these acts. The innovation of these acts on another plane is bid’ah since it is an unsubstantiated innovation into the Deen. Regarding such innovations, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Every bid’ah is dhalaalah and every dhalaalah will be in the Fire.”  There are numerous haadith in severe condemnation of bid’ah.

“Speaking of love and reverence for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)”, is not a birthday act for Muslims. This is part of the Muslim’s daily life, and the best way of expressing such love, devotion and honour is by adoption of the Sunnah in every walk of life. This birthday party type of ‘love and honour’ is like the love and devotion which the kuffaar superficially and deceptively express on Christmas Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day and Stupid’s Day. These are all moronic days inspired by shaitaan.

Abu Shaamah’s argument is baseless being bereft of Shar’i substance. We do not appoint our Ulama as “gods’ besides Allah Azza Wa Jal as the Yahood and Nasaara did to their ahbaar and ruhbaan and to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). We have a glittering Shariah with its radiant Dalaa-il which constitute the Bedrock of the stance of the Ulama of Deoband.

Another moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi, blurted out the following blatantly false message on his phone:

“And all these great people will approve of the mawlood which u so eager to promote which is carring on today”

The falsehood of this lie is conspicuous. Not a single of the great Ulama who had permitted their specific type of moulood had ever condoned the haraam, shaitaani meelaad function in vogue today. The moron’s claim is absolutely false. All of them have slated the evil accretions in the kind of moulood which they had permitted.

Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) who condones the kind of meelad minus haraam acts, says: “There are two kinds of functions where the birth (of Rasulullah–sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned:

(1) Such functions where impermissible activities take place Such a function is absolutely not permissible……Most meelaad functions are of this kind.. 

(2) Such functions which are devoid of evil and impermissible acts 

……Many people stand when mention of the birth is made. This is bid’ah. There is no Hadith, etc. to substantiate this practice….”

Two facts are noteworthy in the aforementioned statements of Ibn Hajar:

(1) All current forms of meelaad are bid’ah sayyiah and haraam. He belies the moron who peddles the idea that he (Ibn Hajar) and the other Ulama are in support of the type of moulood practices currently in vogue.

(2) Ibn Hajar’s self-contradiction which neutralizes his claim of permissibility of the first kind of moulood. In the aforementioned statement, Ibn Hajar condemns and bans qiyaam (standing up) when the performers sing their ‘Ya Nabi’ songs or when the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned during the meelaad performance. He labels qiyaam as bid’ah, and his daleel for it being bid’ah is that there is no Hadith substantiation for this practice. Yet he forgot that there is no Hadith substantiation for even the whole meelaad function. Thus, his condemnation of qiyaam because of no Hadith basis while condoning meelaad which also has no basis, not only no basis in the Hadith, but no basis in Islam for more than six centuries, is illogic. For the same reason that Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) regards qiyaam to be bid’ah, should he likewise have believed that meelaad too is bid’ah. The common denominator for both acts being bid’ah and not permissible is the total lack of Hadith and Khairul Quroon support.

Furthermore, the lopsided, illogic arguments which Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and others of the same school offer for permissibility of their kind of meelaad, could have been extended to qiyaam as well. Just as they have mangled Ahaadith of general import to extravagate permissibility for the bid’ah of their specific kind of meelaad, so too could they have mutilated by means of baseless extrapolation the Hadith: “Stand for your sayyid (chief).”, to eke out substantiation for the bid’ah of qiyaam. After all, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the greatest Sayyid. If qiyaam was ordered for small-timer worldly chieftains, then this Hadith could have acted as a “great daleel” for substantiating the bid’ah of meelaad qiyaam. However, this logic had not occurred to Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and others. After all, the whole ‘logic’ underlying the permissibility of even the first kind of meelaad is illogic and baseless. There can never be permissibility for bid’ah.

We conclude this brief refutation of the baatil of moulood/ mawlid /melaad with this summary for quick reference:

(1) There is total Ijma’ (Consensus) of all Ulama of all times and ages that the type of moulood in vogue is bid’ah sayyiah (evil bid’ah) and haraam due to the many haraam elements with which these festivals are associated.

(2) Some Shaafi’ Ulama who appeared many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) condoned such meelaad functions which were devoid of haraam elements. They believed that their specific type of meelaad which consisted of only praising Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam, feeding people and giving charity, is commendable, hence they described it as ‘bid’ah hasanah’.

(3) There is absolutely no Qur’aan and Hadith support for the bid’ah hasanah type of moulood functions. In fact, the accretion of moulood was innovated by the vile king of Irbal more than six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus, for the first more than six centuries, the Ummah never knew what meelaad is. 

(4)  The difference on this issue is not a difference of the four Mathhabs. It is simply a difference between Haqq and  baatil. The votaries of meelaad, i.e. the first type of meelaad minus the haraam elements, were clearly in error. For them it had become an emotional issue, hence their intellect became clouded. There are valid reasons for this lamentable error of the senior Ulama. However, this is not the juncture for elaboration.

(5) All moulood functions are haraam bid’ah sayyiah. Participation in any type of meelaad festival is a major sin.

“Then We have established you on a Shariah regarding (all your) affairs. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who do not know.”  [Qur’aan]

Deobandi Sufi

Tasawwuf is an essential element of religion according to the Deobandis.

It is this tasawwuf that produces life in the physical forms of worship done and makes them worthy of being accepted. Without it Shariah is a body without a soul.

However, it must be clear that tasawwuf alone without the actions prescribed by Shariah is heresy (zindaqah).

All great scholars of Deoband were either shuyukh or mureedeen in Chishti, Naqshbandi, Qadri or Suharwardi tariqahs.

For example, Qutub e ‘Alam Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi , Hakeemul Ummat Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi and Shaykhul-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyyah Kandhlawi (rahimahumullah) were from Chishti silsilah. Mawlana Aziz ur Rehman, Mawlana Habibur Rehman and Mawlana Badar e Alam Meerthi (rahimahumullah) were Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi. Mawlana Taj Mehmood Amrooti and Mawlana Ahmad Ali Lahori (rahimahumullah) were Qadiri. Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahimahullah) had ijaza’ from his father in Suharwardi tariqah.

Also, most of the present day serious Deobandi scholars are into Tasawwuf practically. This is evident by their demeanor, speech, mutual and financial dealings, etc. Not by mere lip-service and boastful claims.

As it is said in Persian proverb: mushuk (musk) does not need a label to let others be aware that it is musk. Its smell in enough advertisment.

A very important fact is that real tasawwuf exists in these Deobandi shuyukh to date.

In Muslim world you find a lot who claim to be sufi, whereas in reality they are not. It is a ritualistic or ceremonial SUFISM  they follow. It has nothing to do with effacement of destructing moral characteristics like pride, envy, love of wordly etc and establishment of elevating moral traits, like sincerity, love of Allah Ta’ala and His Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), humility, perpetual remembrance, etc. all leading to a firm and acceptable relationship with Allah Ta’ala (that is, ta’aluq ma’Allah).

The real Tasawwuf  is thriving, vital and pristine in Deobandi-tradition. It is totally subservient to Shariah and hence, in complete harmony with Sunnah. It is a unique treasure to be acquired as soon as possible.

It is within our home. Why ignore and look outside at the flashy gimmicks?

Please, take time to reflect!

We, the admirer of Deobandi-tradition where do we stand?

Are we following the real inheritors of this tradition?



By: Shaykh Mohammad Akram Nadwi

Translated from the original Arabic by Ustadh Tariq Pandor


They said: You have worked in Oxford for twenty years on an academic project looking at the history of the Islamic sciences in India and its Madrassas and centres of learning. So what is the best madrassa in the long history of India, given the multitude of its madrassas and the variety of its institutes and the differences in its centres of teaching?

I said: That would be Darul Ulum Deoband.

They said: We find this statement of yours odd. Are you being truthful or [speaking in] jest? Are you being serious or joking?

I said: I seek refuge in Allah from being from the ignorant. Do you want me to be sectarian or to be sincere? To be discerning or to mislead? To be prejudiced or to be just?

They said: We know you to be sincere, discerning and just. So reveal to us the aspects in which you prefer Darul Ulum Deoband over the other madrassas.

I said: That would take volumes [to write].

They said: Spare us your volumes as we have become tired of them. Summarise for us some of their points which would be indicative of others and we will be most grateful to you.

I said: I have summarised them in three points so listen to them and remember them.

The first point is the attention paid by Darul Ulum to the noble prophetic hadiths. The teaching curricula in India were deficient in noble prophetic hadiths. Those in charge of the curricula had not stipulated any books of hadith except for “Mashariq al Anwar” of Saghani which they then replaced with “Mishkat al Masabih”. As for the six primary collections, they were not added to the studied texts until the arrival of Imam Ahmad ibn Abd al-Rahim, better known as Shah Waliullah al-Dehlawi, who added some of them, as well as the “Muwatta”, to the curriculum. Things remained like this for a century, then Darul Ulum was established. It was the first madrassa to concern itself with teaching the six primary collections as well as the “Muwatta”, according to the narrations of both Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laithi and Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaibani, and “Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar”. This is a merit by which Darul Ulum Deoband is distinguished from the other madrassas in India, and even across the entire islamic world.

They said: You have an interest in isnads (chains of narrations) and ijazahs (certificates of authority). So who are you connected with from the hadith scholars of Deoband?

I said: I am connected with all of them via many routes and various isnads, and to Allah belongs all praise and thanks.

They said: So what is your highest sanad to them, the most noble and the strongest?

I said: That would be my narration from the most erudite scholar and muhaddith Ahmad Rida al-Bijnuri, the commentator of Sahih Bukhari, from the Hafidh of India, it’s Muhaddith and Imam in the hidden defects in hadith and narrator criticism, the erudite scholar Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri, followed by my narration from the erudite scholar and muhaddith Nasir Ahmad Khan, as well as from the long-lived Shaikh Ahmad Ali al-Surti, both from the long-lived Hafidh Abdur Rahman al-Amrohi.

They said: You have certainly attained high, noble chains of narration, all of whose narrators are imams of fiqh and accurate experts of hadith. So bring us the second point.

I said: The second point is Darul Ulum Deoband’s revival and dissemination of the Sunnah of the Master of the Messengers and its strenuous effort in eliminating innovations and newly invented matters. For all of India was under the influence and powerful grip of innovations and superstitions until the scholars of Deoband stood up and opposed them and removed them. We do not know of any movement which played a role similar to that of Deoband in eliminating innovations and superstitions and preventing evil.

They said: Who is their head and leader in that?

I said: The imam, the unique luminary, the pious, the pure, the devout scholar, the inimitable Shaikh Rashid Ahmad al-Gangohi, may Allah show him abundant mercy, raise his ranks and make him of those close to Him. No mother has been capable of giving birth to his likeness and history has been unable to produce similar to him. He is the one for whom my heart has been filled with love and appreciation. He resembles the two imams, Sufyan al-Thawri and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in the purity of his heart and the strength of his faith, in his servitude to Allah and submission to Him, and in his revival of the Sunnah and vanquishing of innovations.

They said: Has anyone else been similar to him in the long history of India?

I said: [Can there be anyone] other than this one?

They said: We beseech you to answer our request.

I said: Will you excuse me (from having to mention anyone in a similar way)?

They said: We do not excuse you.

I said: Well if you refuse then perhaps Imam Muhammad Isma’il ibn ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Waliullah al-Shahid, may Allah have mercy on him. I adjure you to not ask me for a third to go with these two.

They said: Bring us your third point.

I said: The third point is Darul Ulum’s production of practising scholars who cultivated their inner aspects before building their outer aspects, who purified themselves of all depravities, who cleansed their hearts of envy, hatred, malice and loathsomeness, who lived lives of piety, cautiousness, asceticism, contentment and sufficiency, who devoted themselves to worship and to the teaching and upbringing of the people, and who prepared followers who resembled them in purity and virtue and who spread to all corners of India and even beyond, calling mankind to the worship of Allah, exalted is He, and to following the Sunnah of the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him.

They said: Name them.

I said: The list will be long.

They said: Tell us the names of their most eminent scholars.

I said: The first of them is the Imam, the caller [to Islam], the educator, Muhammad Qasim al-Nanotwi, the founder of Darul Ulum and colleague of the erudite scholar Rashid Ahmad al-Gangohi. Then the erudite scholar and muhaddith Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri, as well as “Shaikh al-Hind” Mahmud al-Hasan al-Deobandi, Shaikh ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Raipuri, “Hakim al Ummat” Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanwi, Shaikh ‘Abd al Qadir al-Raipuri, and the erudite scholar and muhaddith Husain Ahmad al-Faizabadi al-Madani.

They said: This will suffice for us. We have heard you speak in the most laudatory terms of the erudite scholar Rashid Ahmad al-Gangohi. Can you please point us to a source containing his biography?

I said: The best biographer of him was the erudite scholar and muhaddith Muhammad ‘Ashiq Ilahi al-Mirti, who wrote [his biography] in urdu.

They said: Does he have an Arabic biography?

I said: His biography in “Nuzhat al-Khawatir” is one of the best and most comprehensive. I have had the intention to write a detailed biography of him and have collected the material so ask Allah that he gathers my resolve and makes me successful in completing it.


We had mailed the Majlisul Ulama alerting them on Akram Nadwi’s deviant views since they had put up the above article, now they had it removed from their website. We have received the following attachment mail from the Majlis in response:




[By Majlisul Ulama]

1 Jamadul Ula 1438 (30 January 2017)

Commenting on our publication of an article on Darul Uloom Deoband by Akram Nadwi, a Concerned Brother writes:

I was slightly surprised to see shaykh Akram Nadwi’s appraisal of Darul Uloom Deoband in your recent Article, though there is absolutely no fault in it, but the fear-factor is involved when a layperson sees his name and endorsement in your site and begin to think that he might be a true scholar who can be listened through lectures and his books can be read.

The reason for my dissatisfaction with this person is because some of his views are totally deviant which he propagates in the name of ‘Hanafi Fiqh’, 4 years ago some Muftis have exposed his modernist views.

The following link has some detailed exposition of Akram Nadwi’s fallacies: Mu8rgFRQXPOgznoLYfxvRQ

Maulana Saheb, I’d request you to please type a notification in a bracket above ‘Darul Uloom Deoband -Best Madrasah’ Article in your site stating that the Majlis does not endorse this scholar’s deviant views.

(End of letter)

We thank you for drawing our attention to Akram Nadwi. Frankly, we are not aware of him or his views. We have not read any of his articles. The article on Deoband is his first article which has crossed our path. If we had been aware of his deviance, we would not have published his article regardless of its worth. We therefore removed it from our website. Jazaakallaah for the Naseehat.

[End of the clarification from the Majlis]

We Thank the respected Maulana Saheb of Majlisul Ulama for heeding our mail and clarifying their stance on the said person and the above article.

Principles of Deobandi Fiqhi Approach

[Hazrat Mufti Syed Abdush Shakoor Tirmizi (rahimahullah)
(Khalifa of Mawlana Zafar Ahmed Usmani and Mufti Mohammad Shafi’)]


Firstly it is essential to reiterate the fact vividly obvious to anyone who studies the works of senior Deobandi scholars. That is, their beliefs and practices conform completely with the teachings of Quran, hadith and hanafi fiqh. Their sulook and tasawwuf is also exactly according to the Sunnah. They are staunch hanafi and high caliber ahle-sunnah. Neither any of their beliefs is against Qur’an and hadith, nor any of their fiqh ruling against Hanafi fiqh.

Deobandiyat is not a separate maslak (route). In our day and age it is synonymous with maslak of Ahlus Sunnah wal jama’ah.

Few guiding principles:

If the following essential principles are kept in mind the Shari’ah ruling regarding all the contemporary bid’at/innovations will be easy to know:

First Principle:

Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala says:

ولا تسبوالذین یدعون من دون اللیسبو الل عدوا بغیر علم

Commenting under the heading, Hakeemul Ummat Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi (rahimahullah) said:

“The defamation of idols (gods) is per se a mubah (permissible) act. However, if it becomes a cause of a prohibited act, that is, denigration of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala, it will become prohibited (منھی عن) and objectionable (قبیح).

This forms the proof of a fiqh ruling. That is, if a permissible act becomes the cause of a prohibited act that (mubah) act itself becomes haram.

[Bayanul Qur’an volume 1 page 119]

Second Principle

Although, numerous verses of Quran mention tawheed (Oneness of Allah Ta’ala), prophethood, negation of disbelief and polytheism and on various occasions’ infidels (kuffar) mocked at them and denigrated Allah and His Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wasallam). These incidents are well documented in various places. But there is no prohibition of discussing these things.

The reason for this variance is that the discussion of these subjects is essential (wajib) and required by Shariah. If some corruption happens secondary to their discussion even then they will not be abandoned.

This proves the second principle.

Both of these principles are treasure trove of knowledge. Orders and rulings regarding numerous peripheral issues can be found from them. In ‘Ruhul Ma’ani’ this difference has been documented from the answer of Abul-Mansoor (rahimahullah) with Ibn e Sireen (rahimahullahl agreeing  to it.

The net result of these two principles is that,

If a permissible act, and similarly mustebbat & Sunan za’idah become contaminated with prohibited acts, then it will be essential (wajib) to abandon that permissible act. In actions that are themselves essential (wajib) and required by Shari’ah if there is any contamination with prohibited acts then even they will not be abandoned. However, it will be necessary to rectify those wrong doings.

This is the very difference which if not kept in mind leads to propagation of innovations.

Third Principle

Allah Ta’ala says:

یاایھاالذین امنوالاتقولوا رعنا

From this order we come to know the ruling that if an individual’s own permissible act becomes a source/excuse for another individual to commit a prohibited action, then that act becomes impermissible for the first person (to start with).

For example, if a scholar’s act is used to justify an ignorant person’s prohibited action, then if that act is non essential it will become impermissible for the scholar also. [Bayanul Qur’an volume 1 page 57]

This is documented in ‘Durr mukhtar’ and its explanation ‘Raddul mukhtar’ under the discussion of “prostration of thankfulness:

وسجدۃ الشکر مستحبۃ بھ تی لکنھا تکر بعد الصلوۃ لان الجھلۃ یعتقدونھا سنۃ او واجبۃ وکل مباح یودی الیمکرو۔ وی الشرح: وحاصل ان ما لیس لھا سبب لا تکر ما لم یود علھا الی اعتقاد الجھلۃ سنیتھا کالتی یعلھا بعض الناس بعد الصلوۃ  [الشامی جلد 1 ص 731]

It is based on these principles derived from Qur’an, Hadith and ruling of Hanafi jurists, the Deobandi scholars have spoken regarding the contemporary rituals and polemic issues.

[Maqalat e Tirmizi  page 216-218, Darul Ishat, Karachi. 1426H]

Applications of these principles

Based on these well established principles they have said that appointing special dates and other specific requirements for rituals like mawlid shareef gatherings, customs of fathiha (esal-e-thawab),  third and tenth day (post-death) esal e thawab gatherings, etc. to be bid’at.
By fixing these specification and precise requirements belief of them being necessary was developing.  Even if the person performing them had correct beliefs the danger of corrupting the beliefs of less knowledgeable was arising.
It is an established fiqh principle that as important it is to save one’s self from a destruction essentially important is to save others from any loss. That is, as important it to preserve one’s own beliefs equally important is to save others beliefs also.
‘Allamah Shami (Ibn Abideen) rahimahullah has written this principle in the discussion of fixing recitation of particular Surah in Salah. That is, wherever there is possibility of distorting shari’ah rulings or misunderstanding of ignorants. He writes:

“واقول حاصل معنی کلام ھذا الشیخین بیان وج الکراۃ ی المداومۃ وھو انان رای ذالک حقا یکر حیث تغیر المشروع والا یکر من حیث ایھام الجاھل”
[شامی جلد 1 ص 508]

The reason to stop the general people is  تغیر المشروعand for elite is ایھام الجاھل.

A general principle established is that mubah should not exceed its limits (both in knowledge and practice) and mutlaq must not change from its itlaq, both in knowledge and practice and a muqqiyad must not change similarly. There are many verses and hadith to prove this. As this is an established principle I do not need to mention daleel. Just to remind forgetful I mention,
It is narrated in Muslim:
قال رسول الل صلی الل علی وسلم لا تختصوا لیلۃ الجمعۃ من بین اللیلی ولا تختصو یوم الجمعۃ لقیام من الایام الا ان یکون ی یصوم احدکم  (الحدیث)

As Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had mention numerous merits of jumu’ah day and salatul jumu’ah there was a possibility that some will decide himself to specially select them for praying and fasting. For this Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself negated this thinking and reiterated that only those things that he had mentioned in this regard are recommendable and a Sunnah. If some one exceeds them then it will not be acceptable.
Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) explains this principle:
احتج ب العلماء علی کراھۃ ھذ الصلوۃ المبتدعۃ التی تسمی الرغائب قاتل الل “واضعھا” و مخترعھا قھا بدعۃ منکر من البدع الضلال و الجھال
[Maqalat e Tirmizi pg 219-20]

The most striking thing we see in these days is that a mubah is given so much significance that people will easily ignore a person who does not pray salah or fast or makes ghiyba or lies but if a observant Muslim does not perform mawlid he is chastised, looked down upon and called names.
Is it not exceeding the mubah from its limits?? 

The Slander against Hakim al-Ummah Hazrat Thanawi (Rahmatullah alayh): Degrading the Status of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and its Reply

By Maulana Manzur Nu’mani

With  regards  to  Hakim  al-Ummah  Hazrat  Mawlana Ashraf  ‘Ali  Sahib  Thanawi  (Rahmatullah  alayh), Mawlawi  Ahmad  Raza  Khan  Sahib  Barelwi  wrote  on pages  20-1  of  Husaam  al-Haramayn:

From  the  seniors  of  these  Satanic  Wahhabis  is another  man  from  the  scions  of  Gangohi  called Ashraf  ‘Ali  al-Thanawi.  He  compiled  a  small  treatise that  does  not  reach  four  pages  and  stated  clearly therein  that  the  equivalent  of  the  Messenger  of Allah’s  (Allah  bless  him  and  grant  him  peace) knowledge  of  the  unseen  has  been  acquired  by every  child  and  every  madman,  rather  every  animal and  every  beast.  These  are  his  accursed  words:

“If  the  assessment  of  the  knowledge  of  unseen  for the  holy  essence  of  the  Nabi  is  valid  as  said  by Zayd,  it  will  be  asked:  What  did  he  intend  by  this  – is  it  a  portion  of  the  unseen  or  all  of  it?  If  he intended    a  portion,  then  what  speciality  is  there  in this  for  the  Revered  Rasool,  for  indeed  the equivalent  of  this  knowledge  of  unseen  has  been acquired  by  Zayd  and  ‘Amr,  rather  every  child  and madman,  rather  all  animals  and  beasts?  And  if  he intended  all  whereby  no  part  is  excluded,  its invalidity  is  established  by  narration  and  reason.”

I  say:  Look  at  the  effects  of  the  seal  of  Allah Almighty  –  how  he  equates  [the  knowledge  of]  the Messenger  of  Allah  (Allah  Almighty  bless  him  and grant  him  peace)  to  [the  knowledge  of]  such-and such  and  such-and-such!

Here,  I  cannot  give  any  answer  to  those  ghastly  and disgusting  words  which  Khan  Sahib  has  attributed to  Hazrat  Hakim  al-Ummah.  Its  word-for-word retort  can  be  given  by  those  vulgar  people  who have  also  reached  the  status  of  “revivers”  in  the  art of  vulgarity  and  abuse.  I  am  completely  free  of  and helpless  in  this  craft.  The  Wise  Qur’an  states:  “Tell My  servants  that  they  should  speak  that  which  is best.  Surely,  Satan  creates  discord  among  them. Indeed,  Satan  is  an  open  enemy  to  mankind.” [17:53]    Elsewhere  (in  the  Qur’aan)  Allah  Ta’ala addressed  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam): “Repel  evil  with  that  which  is  best.”  [23:96]  Thus, according  to  this  Qur’anic  imperative,  in  reply  to this  abuse  and  vulgarity  of  Khan  Sahib,  I  will  only offer  [this  plea]  to  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal:  O  My  Rabb! Khan  Sahib  has  passed  on  from  this  world.  Now save  his  successors  from  this  evil  practice  which  is  a shame  and  humiliation  in  this  world  and  deprivation and  loss  in  the  afterlife.

Only  Allah  guides  to  the  path  of  righteousness.  It seems  that  when  writing  Husaam  al-Haramayn, Khan  Sahib  took  an  oath  that  he  will  not  be  truthful and  honest  in  any  act.  Ponder:  What  is    the  actual statement  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  and  its  true  meaning, and  what  is  the  accursed  calumny  of  Khan  Sahib’s slander,  viz.,  –  that  the  extent  of  the  knowledge  of the  unseen  which  is  possessed  by  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  also  possessed  by every  child  and  madman,  nay  every  animal  and every  beast  (Allah  forbid!)??  If  before  broadcasting his  slander  of  disbelief,  Khan  Sahib  had  quoted  the entire  text  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  without  mutilation, readers  would  have  known  the  truth,  then  there would  not  have  been  the  need  for    this  refutation.

Hifz  al-Imaan  is  a  short  treatise  by  Hakim  al-Ummah  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  in  which  are  three topics.  The  third  topic  is:  “Is  calling  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), ‘knower of the ghayb’ (Aalimul  Ghaib)  correct  or  not?”  It  is  clear  that  the discussion  of  Mawlana  was  not  regarding  whether  or not  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had knowledge  of  the  ghayb,  and  if  so,  how  much? Rather,  here,  Mawlana  only  wanted  to  establish  that it  cannot  be  said  that  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  is  “knower  of  the  ghayb”  (Aalimul Ghayb).  There  is  a      vast  difference  between  the two  issues.

An  attribute  which  belongs  to  a  being  may  not  be utilized  in  an  unrestricted  manner  for  that  being.   In  the  Noble  Qur’an,  Allah  is  described  as  “the Creator  of  all  things”  [Qur’an  6:102,  13:16,  39:62, 40:62].  It  is  the  belief  of  all  Muslims  that  everything in  the  world,  small  or  big,  great  or  insignificant,  was created  by  Allah  Ta’ala.  However,  despite  this,  our  jurists  have  clearly  stated  that  it  is  impermissible  to call  him  “the  Creator  of  monkeys  and  swine.” Likewise,  in  the  Noble  Qur’an,  “farming”  is attributed  to  Him  (Qur’an  56:64),  yet  it  is  incorrect to  describe  Him  as  a    “farmer”.  Similarly,  the  Arabs   use  the  term  rizq  (sustenance)  in  general  for  the provisions  and  positions  which  the  commander endows  to  the  men  of  his  army.  Thus  in  many  books of  Arabic  language  the  sentence  “the  commander sustained  the  army”  is  written,  although  it  is incorrect  to  refer  to  the  commander  as  raziq  or razzaq  (sustainer). It  is  narrated  by  Hazrat ‘A’ishah Siddiqah (Radhiyallahu anha)  that Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  would  mend his  own  shoes  and  milk  his  camels  himself.

Despite  this,  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) may  not  be  referred  to  as  a  cobbler  or  milkman. The  reality  is  that  in  some  instances  despite  the existence  of    an  attribute  in  someone  or  some being,  it  may  not  be  used  in  an  unqualified manner  for  that  person/being.

I  hope  that  from  this  introduction  my  readers  have understood  that  the  question  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  possessing  knowledge of  ghayb  or  not  is  a  separate  discussion,  apart    from the  issue  of  the  permissibility  or  impermissibility  of   using  the  designation  of  Aalimul  Ghayb  (“The knower  of  the  ghayb”)  for  him.  There  is  no necessary  correlation  between  the  two.

Now  understand  that  the  objective  of  Hazrat Mawlana  (Rahmatullaah  alayh)  in  Hifz  al-Imaan  was  only  to  establish  that  it  is  impermissible  to    use the  title  of  Aalimul  Ghaib    (Knower  of  the  Ghayb)  in an  unrestricted,  all-embracing  manner  for Rasulullah   (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  and  to prove  that  this  designation  (Aalimul  Ghayb)  may not  be  used  for  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  in  the    way  that  the  titles  “the  Seal  of  the  Ambiya,”  “the  Chief  of  the  Messengers,”  “the Mercy  to  all  Worlds”  etc.  etc.  are  used.  In  support of  this  claim,  Mawlana  presented  two  proofs.

The  upshot  of  the  first  evidence  is  that  in  the general  usage  of  the  Shari‘ah,  the  title  of  Aalimul Ghayb  (Knower  of  the  Ghayb)   applies  to  only    The Being  who  knows  the  matters  of  the  ghayb intrinsically,  without  having  acquired  it  via  any medium.  This  is  the  exclusive  distinction  of    Allah Azza  Wa  Jal.    If  any  other  being  is  called  “knower  of the  ghayb,”  in  this  meaning,  it  will  create  the impression    that    the  other  being  besides  Allah Ta’ala   also  possesses  knowledge  of  ghayb intrinsically,  i.e.  without  having  acquired  it  from  any  medium.  This  is  an  explicit  belief  of  shirk.  Thus,  to refer  to  anyone  besides  Allah  Ta’ala  as  “Knower  of the  Ghayb”  is  incorrect  as  it  confuses  it  with  a belief  of  shirk.

This  is  why  in  the  Qur’an  and  Hadith  such  dubious words    which  could  create  misunderstanding    are forbidden.  For  example,  the   Qur’an  Shareef prohibits  addressing  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) with the word, ra‘ina [2:104], and the Hadith  prohibits  calling  one’s  servants  “my  slaves” because  these  words  are  suggestive  of  a  false meaning  even  if  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the speaker.  This  is  a  summary  of  Hazrat  Mawlana Thanawi’s  first  evidence.

However,  since  Khan  Sahib  did  not  object  to  this proof  of  Mawlana  Thanawi  –  in  fact,  in  many  places of  his  book  al-Dawlat  al-Makkiyyah,  Khan  Sahib states  approximately  the  same  contention  in complete  detail,  there  is  no  need  for  me  to  present any  justification  or  support  for  it.

Now,  I  will  turn  my  attention  to  the  second  evidence of  Mawlana.  Khan  Sahib  claimed,  “He  stated  clearly therein  that  the  equivalent  of  the  knowledge  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  regarding  the  unseen  realities  has  been  acquired  by  every child  and  every  madman,  in  fact,  by  every  animal.

But  before  quoting  the  original  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  understanding  of the  readers,  I  feel  it  will  be  appropriate  to  mention that  in  this  second  proof,  Mawlana  divided  the matter  into  two  options  for  the  opponent. Then  he proved the inaccuracy and falsity of both.

The  upshot  of  the  second  proof  of  Mawlana  is  that  a person,  for  example  Zayd,      uses  the  designation  of Aalimul  Ghayb  (Knower  of  the  Ghayb)  for  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  without  qualifying  the term.  This  entails  one  of  two  meanings.  One: Rasulullah    (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam))  has  partial knowledge  of    the  ghayb  or  he  has  total  and  allencompassing  knowledge  of  the  ghayb.  The  second   meaning  is  obviously  false  because  narrational (Naqli)  and  rational  (Aqli)  proofs  negate  allencompassing,  intrinsic  Ilm  of  the  Ghayb  for   Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).    In  fact, even  Mawlawi  Ahmad  Raza  Khan  Sahib  himself concedes  this.

The  first  meaning,  i.e.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  is  Aalimul  Ghayb  because  he  is  aware  of   some  ghayb,  is  also  erroneous  and  baseless.  It  is obvious  that  in    this  scenario  it  would  entail  that every  person,  rather  even  animals,  can  be  called “knower  of  the  ghayb”  because  some  matters  of  the ghayb  are  possessed  by  all. Every  animate  being  necessarily  has  some  knowledge  which  is  hidden from  others.  On  this  basis  it  follows  that everyone  may  be  called  “knower  of  the  ghayb”,    but this  is  rationally,  scripturally  and  customarily,  that is,  in  every  way,    erroneous.  This  is  a  summary  of Mawlana’s  entire  argument.  Now,  I  will  present  the original  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  with  clarification [in  parenthesis].

The  Passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  and  its Clarification

After  explaining  the  first  scenario,  Mawlana  writes: If  according  to  Zayd,  it  is  valid  to  predicate  the knowledge  of  ghayb  to  Rasulullah  –  Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam  –  (i.e.  meaning,  calling  Rasulullah  – Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam  –  the  “Knower  of  the Ghayb”  in  the  all-encompassing  meaning),  then  he (i.e.  this  Zayd)  will  be  asked:  “Does  this  refer  to some  ghayb  or  total  ghayb?”

Here,  Hazrat  Mawlana  asked  this  person  (i.e.  Zayd) who  called  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) the  “Knower  of  the  Ghayb”:  “On  what  basis  do  you refer  to  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  as “knower  of  the  ghayb”?  Is  it  because  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  some  knowledge  of ghayb?  Or  is  it  because  he  has  total  knowledge  of ghayb?)

If  some  knowledge  of  ghayb  is  intended  (meaning, because  of  some  knowledge  of  ghayb,  you  called Rasulullah=  Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam  –  the “Knower  of  the  Ghayb”,  and  your  principle  is  that whoever  has  some  knowledge  of  ghayb  you  refer  to him  as  “Knower  of  the  Ghayb”),  then  what distinction  is  there  in  this  (meaning  of      knowledge of  merely  some  ghayb  for  Rasulullah  -Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)?  Such  (partial)  knowledge  of  the ghayb  (because  of  which  you  believe  it  is  necessary to  call  someone  “knower  of  the  ghayb,”)  is  available to  Zayd  and  ‘Amr,  rather  every  child  and  madman, rather  even  all  animals  and  quadrupeds  because every  person  has  knowledge  of    some  matter  which is  hidden  from  a  second  person.  Thus,  everyone should  be  called  “knower  of  the  ghayb”  (based  on your  principle  that  because  of  mere  knowledge  of some  ghayb,  a  person  may  be  called  “knower  of  the ghayb”).

An  Explanation  of  the  Distortion  of  Khan  Sahib Barelwi  of  the  Passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan

This  was  the  original  passage  of  Hazrat  Mawlana, and  this  was  its  clear  and  explicit  intent  which  I have  presented.  However,  Khan  Sahib,  in  his commentary,  gave  it  such  a  meaning  that  even Satan  after  listening  to  it  will  seek  refuge.  In  this respect,  a  brief  description  of  Khan  Sahib’s distortion  is  as  follows:

1. The  word  aysa  (such/like  this)  appears  in  the passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan,  and  its  intent  is  some knowledge  of  ghayb  in  a  specific.  It  does  not  refer to  the  blessed  knowledge  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  However,  Khan  Sahib  claimed  that the  intention  is  the  blessed  knowledge  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Hence he wrote:  “He  stated  clearly  therein  that  the  equivalent of  the  Messenger  of  Allah’s    knowledge  of  the unseen  has  been  acquired  by  every  child  and  every madman,  rather  every  animal  and  every  beast.”

1. The  original  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  was  as follows:  “Such  knowledge  of  the  ghayb  is  available to  Zayd  and  ‘Amr,  rather  every  child  and  madman, rather  even  all  animals  and  quadrupeds;  because every  person  has  knowledge  of  certain  issues  which are  hidden  from  others..”  Khan  Sahib  totally  omitted this  underlined  sentence  in  the  middle  of  his  quote because  it  is  clearly  understood  from  it  that  the knowledge  that  is  conceded  for  Zayd,  ‘Amr  etc.  is some  knowledge  of  ghayb  in  a  specific  sense,  not (Allah  forbid!)  the  blessed  knowledge  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

2. After  the  abovementioned  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan,  the  conclusion  of  the  ilzami  argument  is worded  as:  “then  all  should  be  called  ‘knower  of  the ghayb’.” Khan Sahib also omitted this, because from  this  sentence  it  is  completely  clear  that  the discussion  of  the  author  of  Hifz  al-Iman  was  not about  the  extent  of  the  knowledge  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Rather,  his  discussion was  only  about  the  unqualified  usage  of  the  title  of   “knower  of  the  ghayb.”  After  having  realised  this, the  reality  of  the  entire  scheme  of  Khan  Sahib  is laid  bare.    

Anyhow,  in  order  to  declare  the  author  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  a  disbeliever,  Khan  Sahib  committed  this deception,  and  those  sentences  from  which  the meaning  of  the  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  can  easily be  understood  were  completely  omitted  in  the middle,  and  he  only  quoted  the  first  and  last  part  of the  passage.  Shrewdly,  in  the  Arabic  translation  of the  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  which  he  presented  to the  Ulama  of  the  two  Harams,  he  gave  no  indication from  which  those  revered  Ulama  could  have understood  that  in  the  middle  of  this  passage  some sentences  were  missing.  Our  readers  can  see  this handiwork  in  the  Arabic  passage  of  Khan  Sahib’s Husaam  al-Haramayn,  which  I  quoted  from    at  the beginning  of  this  discussion  with  its  exact  wording.

More  Explanation  of  the  Passage  from  Hifz  al-Iman

Although  the  dishonesty  of  Khan  Sahib  and  the condition  of  his  fatwa  will  be  understood  by  the readers  from  this  explanation,  to  explain  further,  I wish  to  shed  more  light  on  its  particular  parts.

The  upshot  of  the  second  evidence  of  Hazrat  Hakim al-Ummah  was  this:

There  are  two  scenarios  in  which  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  can  be  called  “Knower of  the  Ghayb.”  One  is  that,  because  of  full  ghayb, he  is  called  “Knower  of  the  Ghayb.”  The  second  is that,  because  of  some  ghayb,  [he  is  called  so].  The first  option  is  false  because  the  absence  of  his knowledge  of  all  ghayb  is  established  by  narrational   and  rational  proofs.  And  the  second  option  is  false because  some  knowledge  of  ghayb  is  possessed even  by  insignificant  things  in  this  world.  Based  on this  principle,  everyone  should  be  called  “knower  of the  ghayb”,  but  this  is  baseless  in  every  way.

If  the  parts  of  this  proof  are  broken  down,  it  will  be realised  that  its  basic  premises  are  as  follows:

1. So  long  as  a  principle  does  not  subsist  in  a certain  being,  its  morphological  derivative  [for example,  the  active  participle]  cannot  be unqualifiedly  used  for  it.  For  example,  a  person  can be  called  “knower”  when  the  attribute  of  knowledge is  found  in  him;  a  person  is  called  “ascetic”  in  whom the  attribute  of  asceticism  subsists;  and  a    person  is called  “writer”  who  has  achieved  the  ability  of writing;  and  other  such  examples.

1. With  the  cause,  its  effect  must  be  found.  It  is not  possible  that  the  cause  has  no  effect.

2. Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not acquire  knowledge  of  all  ghayb.

3. Generally  some  awareness  of  the  unseen  is available  to  even  those  who  are  not  Ambiya,  and even  to  non-humans.

4. Every  Zayd  and  ‘Amr  cannot  be  called “knower  of  the  ghayb.”

5. The  falsity  of  the  consequence  (lazim) necessitates  the  falsity  of  that  which  it  is consequential  upon  (malzum),  meaning,  if  the acceptance  of  something  necessarily  leads  to  an absurdity,  it  is  itself  absurd.

From  these  premises,  the  first  two  and  the  last  two are  rationally  accepted  principles,  and  obvious.  No sane  person  in  the  world  will  dispute  this.  I  shall establish  the  third  and  fourth  premises  from  the clear  statements  of  Khan  Sahib.

The  accuser  is  a  thousand  times  weightier  than  your witness

Proof  of  the  most  Important  Premises  of  Hifz al-Imaan  from  the  Statements  of  Khan  Sahib himself

The  third  premise  of  Hazrat  Mawlana  Thanawi  was that  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not acquire  full  knowledge  of  the  ghayb. Now    note  its proofs  from  the  statements  of  the  Barelwi  learned man:

Khan  Sahib  wrote  on  page  25  of  al-Dawlat  al-Makkiyyah:

For  indeed  we  do  not  claim  that  he  (Allah  bless  him and  grant  him  peace)  had  encompassed  all  the things  known  to  Allah  (Glorified  and  Exalted  is  He), for  indeed  it  is  impossible  for  creation.

And  in  the  same  al-Dawlat  al-Makkiyyah,  he  writes:

And  we  do  not  affirm  through  the  bestowal  of  Allah Almighty  also  but  a  part.  (al-Dawlat  al-Makkiyyah,  p 28)

And  this  very same Raza Khan  writes  on  page  34  of  Tamhid  e Iman:

Even  the  knowledge  of    the  Nabi  (Allah  bless  him and  grant  him  peace)  does  not  encompass  all  things known  to  the  Divine  Being.

Furthermore,  on  page  34  of  this  Tamhid  is  written:

And  encompassing  knowledge  of  all  things  known  to the  Divine  Being  is  also  false  and  against  most scholars.  (i.e.  if  attributed  to  others  besides  Allah Ta’ala).

The  import,  nay  the  objective,  of  all  these  passages of  Khan  Sahib  is  that  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  did  not  acquire  knowledge  of  all  ghayb. The  acquisition  of  detailed  knowledge  of  all  the unseen  is  impossible  for  him,  nay  for  all  creatures, and  believing  in  this  is  false.  This  is  precisely  the third  premise  in  Mawlana  Thanawi’s  evidence.  With praise  to  Allah,  from  the  explicit  statements  of  Khan Sahib,  this  has  become  clear  as  daylight.  So  all praise  is  due  to  Allah.

The  fourth  premise  of  the  evidence  of  Mawlana Thanawi  under  inspection  was  that  generally awareness  of  some  unseen  matters  is  acquired  by non-Ambiya  and  even  non-humans  too.

Take  note  of  its  proof  from  the  statements  of  Khan Sahib  Barelwi  also:

The  aforementioned  learned  man  wrote  on  page  13 of  al-Dawlat  al-Makkiyyah:

Indeed  we  believe  in  the  Resurrection,  and  in  the Garden  and  the  Fire,  and  in  Allah  Almighty  and  the seven  fundamentals  of  His  (Exalted  and  Majestic  is He)  attributes,  and  all  of  this  is  ghayb.  And  we know  each  in  its  own  right,  distinguished  from  other than  it,  so  this  necessitates  the  acquisition  of general  detailed  knowledge  of  the  unseen  for  every believer.

Moreover,  this  Khan  Sahib  says  on  page  24  of  Khalis al-I‘tiqad:

Allah  Almighty  said  about  the  Muslims,  “they believe  in  the  unseen”  (Qur’an  2:3).  Belief  is consent,  and  consent  is  knowledge.  The  thing  which is  fundamentally  unknowable,  how  is  its  belief possible?  Indeed  [it  says]  in  al-Tafsir  al-Kabir: “There  is  no  obstacle  in  saying,  ‘We  know  of  the ghayb  that  for  which  we  have  evidence.’”

It  is  known  from  these  two  passages  of  Khan  Sahib that  some  knowledge  of  the  ghayb  is  necessary  for every  believer.

Khan  Sahib  said  regarding  a  prophecy  of  his  father:

This  was  a  prophecy  made  forty  years  ago.  Allah Almighty  grants  His  accepted  slaves  knowledge  of ghayb  because  they  are  the  bearers  of  the  shoes  of the  slaves  of  the  slaves  of  the  Holy  Prophet  (Allah bless  him  and  grant  him  peace).  (Malfuzat  A‘la Hazrat)

In  proving  that  in  itself,  kashf    (inspiration)  is nothing  of  perfection.  It  may  occur  to  even  non-Muslims,  nay  to  even  non-humans.  Khan  Sahib quoted  from  one  of  his elders  whom  he  explicitly called  a  “friend  of  Allah”,  the  story  of  a  strange  and wonderful  donkey  who  had  the  ability  of    kashf:

I  was  going  to  Egypt.  There  was  a    huge  gathering. I  saw  a  man  with  a  donkey  whose  eyes  were  tied with  a  stone.  One  person’s  belongings  would  be placed  in  the  possession  of  another  person.  Then the  donkey  would  be  asked  about  its  location,  and the  donkey  would  circle  the  entire  gathering,  until  it reached  the  person  who  had  it,  and  in  front  of  him he  would  bow.  [Malfuzat,  Part  4, p. 11]

After  this,  Khan  Sahib  said:

Thus,  it  is  understood  that  the  attribute  which  is possible  for  a  non-human,  it  is  not  a  perfection  for  a human  being.  [Part  4, p. 11]

It  is  known  from  this  statement  of  Khan  Sahib  that according  to  him,  this  donkey  also  knew  some hidden  things.  And  this  is  the  objective.

I  have  quoted  one  passage  from  Khan  Sahib’s  al-Dawlat  al-Makkiyyah  in  which  is  clearly  stated  that Allah  Ta’ala,  His  attributes,  the  Garden  and  the  Fire, the  Angels  etc.  etc.  are  all  matters  of  the  ghayb, and  this  is  completely  correct.

Based  on  this,  even  though  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  himself  is  not  ghayb,  his  Risaalat is  undoubtedly  a  matter  of  the  ghayb,  because  it  is not  a  tangible  and  physical  entity.  There  is  a  hidden relationship  between  Allah  and  the  Rasool  which  is beyond  the  comprehension  of  our  intellectual faculties.  Based  only  on  the  integrity  of  the  Rasool,   is  he  accepted  as  the  Messenger  of  Allah.  Thus, whoever  acquires  knowledge  of  the  existence  of Allah  Ta’ala,  His  Oneness  or  of  the  Risaalat  of  the Rasool,  he  has  acquired  some  knowledge  of  the unseen.  Khan  Sahib  concedes  that  everything  in existence,  even  the  leaves  of  trees  and  sands  of  the desert,  are  accountable  for  believing  in    Tawhid  and   Risaalat.  They    glorify  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal    and  they   testify  to  the  Nubuwwat  and  Risaalat  of  the Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

For  example,  on  Part  4,  page  77,  of  Khan  Sahib’s Malfuzat,  he  writes:

Everything  is  accountable  for  believing  in   Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  for glorifying  Allah  Ta’ala. Moreover,  on  page  78  of  it  is  written:

A  particular  spirituality  is  connected  to  every  plant and  every  inanimate  object,  whether  that  is  called  a “soul”  or  something  else,  and  that  thing  is accountable  for  faith  and  glorification.  It  says  in  a hadith:  “There  is  nothing  but  it  knows  that  “I  am the  Messenger  of  Allah,  except  the  rebellious  of  the jinn  and  man.”

The  following  matters  are  established  from  these statements  of  Khan  Sahib:

1. Every  believer  must  know  some  matters  of the  ghayb

1.  Even  non-Muslims  experience  kashf

2. Even  a  stupid  animal  like  a  donkey  has knowledge  of  some  hidden  matters

3. All  things  in  existence,  even  plants  and inanimate  objects,  know  some  things  of  ghayb

And  this  was  the  fourth  premise  in  the  proof  of Mawlana  Thanawi.

The  result  is  that  those  premises  on  which Mawlana’s  proof  were  based,  four  are  accepted principles  of  reason  and  are  conspicuously apparent,  and  two  were  dependent  on  proofs,  which I  have,  with  praise  to  Allah,  proven  from  the  clear expressions  of  Khan  Sahib.  Thus,  our  readers  will understand  that  the  entire  basis    on  which  Khan Sahib  applied  the  ruling  of  kufr  on  Hazrat  Mawlana   is  also  shared  and  accepted  by  Khan  Sahib,  and  if it  necessitated  kufr,  then  Khan  Sahib  has  an  equal share  in  that  kufr.

Although  there  is  no  need  to  present  anything  else regarding  the  statement  of  Hifz  al-Imaan,  but  for further  clarification,  I  shall  present  an  illustration.

An  Illustration  of  the  Statement  from  Hifz  al-Imaan

Assume  that  some  disciple  or  devotee  of  Khan Sahib  refers  to  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  as  the  “Knower  of  the  Ghayb”  and believes  it  to  be  permissible.  To  him  I  ask:  “Do  you refer  to  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  as the  ‘Knower  of  the  Ghayb’  because  of  all-encompassing  ghayb  or  partial  ghayb?  If   encompassing  ghayb,  then  that  is,  according  to   Mawlawi  Ahmad  Raza  Khan  Sahib,  absurd  rationally, and  false  scripturally,  rather,  impossible.  On  the other  hand,  if  you  refer  to  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  as  the  ‘Knower  of  the  Ghayb’ because  of  some  ghayb,  and  it  is  your  principle  that whoever  has  knowledge  of  some  ghayb,  you  will  call him      the  ‘Knower  of  the  Ghayb,’  then  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  will  have    no  distinction in  this  because  some  matters  of  ghayb  are possessed  by  every  believer,  infact,  by  all  of humanity,  all  things,  even  animals  and  inanimate objects.  Therefore,  based  on  your  principle  it  is necessary  that  you  call  everything  in  the  world ‘knower    of  the  ghayb.’  Now,  if  you  say  that  you  call everything  ‘knower  of  the  ghayb,’  then  what superiority  and  excellence  have  been  conferred upon  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)    by also  calling  him  ‘knower  of  the  ghayb’?    According to  your  logic  and  view  everyone  (and  everything)  is  a  ‘knower  of  the  ghayb’?”

Respected  readers,  note:  Will  any  sane  person understand  from  my  argument    that  I  have,  Allah forbid!,  equated    the  knowledge  of  other  beings and  creatures  to  the  knowledge  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)?

Take  note  of  another  more  general  illustration:

The  king  of  a  country  is  extremely  generous.  He operates  a  public  kitchen,  and  he  feeds  thousands of  needy  and  poor  people  in  the  morning  and evening.  Now,  some  idiot,  for  example  Zayd,  calls that  king  raziq  (sustainer).  A  second  person,    ‘Amr, asks  him:  “Brother,  why  do  you  refer  to  the  king  as raziq?  Is  it  because  he  gives  sustenance  to  all creation?  Or  is  it  because  he  feeds  some  people?
The  first  is  obviously  false,  so  only  the  second option  remains,  which  is  that  the  king  is  called  raziq because  he  feeds  some  people.    However,  giving him  the  title  in  this  second  meaning  there  is,  no distinction  for  him  because  even  a  poor  man  and  a menial  labourer  fill  the  bellies  of  their  children.   Besides  humans,  even  small  birds  feed  their  chicks, so  according  to  your  principle,  everyone  and  every creature    may  be  called  raziq.”

It  should  be  asked,  did  ‘Amr  mean  by  this statement  that  the  generous  and  beneficent  king and  every  poor  and  menial  labourer  are  equal  in their generosity?  It  is  obvious  that  this understanding  is  a  manifestation  of  the  idiocy  of  the one  who  understood  it.  Thus,  whatever  was  said  in Hifz  al-Imaan  is  nothing  more  than  this.

I  shall  now  cite  a  statement  from  Sharh  al-Mawaqif of  the  accepted  Scholar  of  Ahl  al-Sunna,  Imam ‘Allamah  Sayyid  Sharif  (rahmatullah  alayh),  which  is identical  to  the  statement  of  Hifz  al-Imaan,  so  that after  reading  this  no  Sunni  Muslim  will  dare  to  open his  mouth  against  Hifz  al-Imaan,  because  whatever is  in  Hifz  al-Imaan,  is  approximately  a  translation  of this  passage  from  Sharh  al-Mawaqif.  The  ‘Allamah wrote  [underlined  is  the  original  text  of  al-Iji  and the  remainder  is  from  the  commentary,  Sharh  al-Mawaqif]:

As  for  the  philosophers,  they  say:  He  i.e.  the Nabi  is  the  one  in  whom  three  special  features combine,  by  which  he  is  distinguished  from others.  The  first  of  them,  i.e.  the  first  of  the matters  that  are  exclusive  to  him,  is  that  he  is cognizant  of  the  ghayb,  the  present,  the  past  and the  future.

After  this,  in  a  few  lines,  he  proves  on  behalf  of  the philosophers  that  this  matter  is  not  farfetched  for the  Ambiya  (upon  them  peace).  Then  he  says  on behalf  of  the  philosophers:

And  why  would  this  cognizance  [of  the  ghayb]  in respect the Nabi be considered farfetched,  when  that  is  found  in  those  you  say his  preoccupations  are  exercise  with  [various] types  of  [spiritual]  struggles,  or  illness,  averting the  soul  from  preoccupation  with  the  body  and using  sensory  organs,  or  sleep,  disconnecting thereby  his  external  senses;  since  these [individuals]  are  cognizant  of  the  ghayb  and  give information  about  it  as  attested  to  by  transmission and  experience  whereby  no  doubt  about  it  remains for  those  who  are  just? This  was  a  description  of  the  position  of  the philosophers  and  their  proofs. 

After  this,  the  author (Allah  have  mercy  on  him)  gives  an  answer  on behalf  of  the  Ahl  al-Sunnah  wa  al-Jama‘ah,  and says:

We  say: What  you  mentioned  is  rejected  for [various] reasons:  because  cognizance  of all  ghayb  is  not  necessary  for  the  Nabi  by agreement  between  us  and  you,  and  for  this [reason]  the  Chief  of  the  Prophets  said,  “Had  I knowledge  of  the  ghayb,  I  should  have  abundance of  wealth,  and  adversity  would  not  touch  me” [Qur’an  7:188];  and  a  part,  i.e.  cognizance  of  part [of  the  ghayb],  is  not  specific  to  him,  i.e.  to  the prophet,  as  you  have  agreed,  since  you  allowed  it for  the  exercisers,  the  ill  and  the  sleepers,  so  the Nabi  is  not  distinguished  thereby  from  others.

Fair  readers  should  take  note,  what  is  the  difference between  this  passage  of  Sharh  al-Mawaqif  and  the passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  under  inquiry?

I  hope  that  after  this  explanation  of  the  passage from  Hifz  al-Imaan,  no  doubt  of  the  opponents remains.  To  complete  the  proof  for  this,  I  will  briefly quote  the  answer  which  Hazrat  Mawlana  Thanawi wrote  in  his  reply  to  this  slander.

When  this  fatwa,  Husaam  al-Haramayn,  of  Mawlawi Ahmad  Raza  Khan  Sahib  was  published,  and  it caused  a  great  stir,  the  respected  Mawlana  Sayyid Murtaza  Hasan  Sahib  wrote  a  letter  to  Mawlana Thanawi:

“Mawlawi  Ahmad  Raza  Khan  Sahib  Barelwi  wrote with  respect  to  you  that  you  (Allah  forbid!)  stated explicitly  in  Hifz  al-Imaan  that  the  equivalent  of  the knowledge  the  Messenger  of  Allah  (Allah  bless  him and  grant  him  peace)  possesses  from  the  matters of  the  ghayb  is  possessed  by  every  child  and  every madman  and  every  animal.  Did  you  write  this anywhere  in  Hifz  al-Imaan,  and  is  this  your  belief? And  if  this  is  not  your  belief,  what  is  your  position towards  someone  who  holds  this  revolting  belief?” (Summarised  from  Bast  al-Banaan)

Hazrat  Mawlana  Thanawi  gave  the  answer:

“I  did  not  write  this  disgusting  content  in  any  book. Let  alone  writing  it,  this  thought  never  crossed  my heart.  Nor  is  it  the  necessary  conclusion  of  any speech  of  mine,  as  I  will  explain  later.  Since  I understand  this  content  to  be  revolting,how  can  it be  my  intent?  The  person  who  believes  this,  or without  belief  utters  it  explicitly  or  implicitly,  I believe  him  to  be  outside  the  fold  of  Islam  because he  has  denied  decisive  texts  and  denigrated Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).”

Thereafter,  in  that  book,  Bast  al-Banaan,  Hazrat Mawlana  Thanawi  gave  a  detailed  reply  to  this accusation  of  Khan  Sahib  and  explained  the meaning  of  the  passage  from  Hifz  al-Imaan  under discussion.  However,  now  there  is  no  need  to  quote it  because  all  that  I  wrote  to  explain  this  passage above  is  in  effect  an  elaboration  of  this  answer  of Hazrat  Mawlana.

Respected  readers  carefully  note  how  far  the Barelwi  learned  man  was  from  truth  and  integrity  in this  fatwa.

And  Allah  is  the  One  Who  guides  to  the  path  of rightness.
The  Author  of  Hifz  al-Imaan’s  Search  for  Truth and  his  laudable  Declaration  of  Rewording  the Passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan

Respected  readers!  The  debate-style  reply  to  the fatwa  of  disbelief  which  Mawlawi  Ahmad  Raza  Khan Sahib  issued  in  Husaam  al-Haramayn  by  attributing a  heretical  content  to  Hifz  al-Imaan  has  terminated, and  the  readers  will  understand  that  its  reality  is nothing  besides  slander  and  fabrication,  and  the author  of  Hifz  al-Imaan  is  completely  innocent  of this  impure  and  heretical  belief  ascribed  falsely  to him.

A  sincere  person  drew  the  attention  of  Hazrat Mawlana  Ashraf  ‘Ali  Sahib  Thanawi  (Rahmatullah alayh)  by  suggesting  that: 

“although  the  passage  of Hifz  al-Imaan  in  reality  is  completely  sound  and  free of  doubt,  if  the  words  with  which  the  ungodly  and obstinate  people  deceive  the  fickle  simple-minded commoners  were  rephrased,  these  commoners  who are  susceptible  to  fitnah  would  not  succumb  to  the deception,  so  for  the  sake  of  the  fickle  lay-people this  would  be  best.”

Hazrat  Thanawi  made  dua  for  the  one  who  gave  him this  advice  and  wholeheartedly  accepted  the  advice and  changed  the  passage  in  the  following  way: In  the  old  passage,  the  sentence  which  began  as “such  knowledge  of  the  ghayb”  was  substituted  for the  sentence:  “mere  knowledge  of  some  unseen matters  has  been  attained  by  non-Ambiya.”  This incident  occurred  in  Safar  of  1342 H  (September 1923  CE).  Thus,  approximately  32  years  ago  this revision  had  taken  place  in  the  passage  of  Hifz  al-Imaan.  After  this,  Hifz  al-Imaan  has  continued  to  be printed  with  this  revision.  Rather,  the  entire circumstance  behind  this  revision  and  its announcement  on  behalf  of  the  revered  author (Allah  have  mercy  on  him)  was  printed  as  an addendum  to  Hifz  al-Imaan  called  Taghyir  al‘Unwaan.

Thereafter,  in  Jumada  al-Ukhra  of  1354  H,  it happened  that  because  of  the  advice  of  a  certain individual,  the  worthless  writer  of  these  lines (Muhammad  Manzur  Nu‘mani)  himself  proposed  in the  presence  of  Hazrat  Hakim  al-Ummah  (Allah have  mercy  on  him),  that  the  intent  of  the  words “apply  the  ruling  of  the  knowledge  of  ghayb”  at  the very  beginning  of  the  passage  from  Hifz  al-Iman which  the  obstinate  ones  object    to,  is,  without doubt,  the  unqualified  usage  of  “knower  of  the ghayb,”  which  is  obvious  from  the  preceding  and succeeding  parts  of  this  passage,  and  in  Bast  al-Banaan  and  Taghyir  al-‘Unwaan,  Hazrat  stated explicitly  this.  Therefore,  if  in  the  original  passage “ruling”  is  changed  to  “unqualified  usage”  the matter  will  become  even  more  clear  and  will  leave no  room  for  doubt.  Hazrat,  without  any  hesitation, accepted  this  and  changed  the  sentence  as  follows: “Furthermore,  if  unqualifiedly  using  ‘knower  of  the ghayb’  for  the  holy  essence  is  sound  according  to the  statement  of  Zayd…”  And  he  instructed  this worthless  one  to  announce  this  revision  on  his behalf.  Thus,  in  Rajab  of  1354  H,  in  [the  journal]  al-Furqaan,    this  announcement  was  made.

Anyhow,  after  those  two  revisions,  the  passage  of Hifz  al-Imaan  reads  as  follows:

“Furthermore,  if  unqualifiedly  using  “knower  of  the ghayb”  for  the  holy  essence  is  sound  according  to the  statement  of  Zayd,  he  will  be  asked  about  this matter,  that,  is  the  intent  of  this  ghayb  some  ghayb or  all  ghayb?  If  some  unseen  sciences  is  intended, what  distinction  is  there  for  the  Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  in  this?  Mere  knowledge  of  some unseen  matters  has  been  attained  by  non-Ambiya, so  everyone  should  be  called  “knower  of  the ghayb.”

The  result  is  that  our  elders  declared  their innocence  and  abhorrence  for  the  heretical  beliefs which  Mawlawi  Ahmad  Raza  Khan  Sahib    attributed to them,  and  audaciously  declaring  them disbelievers. In  addition,  our  elders  explained  the true  and  real  meaning  of  those  passages.  They further  proved  that  there  is  nothing  in  their statements  that  is  against  the  teachings  and  beliefs of  the  Ahl  al-Sunnah.

In  order  to  protect    fickle  simple-minded  laymen from  misunderstanding,  if  any  person  sincerely advised  them  to  rephrase  their  statements,  then without  deliberation  and  without  any  ill  feeling,  they accepted  the  advice.  No  doubt  this  is  clear  evidence of  their  sincere  quest  of  the  truth  and  their selflessness.  How  unfortunate!  How  unjust  and wretched are those people who call these noble slaves of Allah disbelievers!