Category Archives: Qabar Pujari Sect

کیا حضرت علی رضی اللہ عنہ کعبہ کے اندر پیدہ ہوئے؟

آز- نجیب اللہ عمر

ﺑﺮﯾﻠﻮیﻮں ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﮐﮯ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻧﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﺎﺋﮯ ﺑﮭﻼ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﮬﻮ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﮬﮯ.
ﺍﺳﻠﺌﮯ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ اﭘﻨﺎ ﻟﯿﺎﮬﮯ ﮐﮧ
ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮬﻮﺋﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ .
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ .
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﭙﺮ ﻭﮦ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺩﻻﺋﻞ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ
ﺟﻨﮑﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﮬﻢ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﮐﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ .

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 1

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ “ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﮎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﯿﺤﯿﻦ” ﺳﮯ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ:

ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺃﺳﺪ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻛﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ۔ ‏(ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﮎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﯿﺤﯿﻦ 550:3 ﺑﺎﺏ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺐ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﯽ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ، ﺭﻗﻢ 6044 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﺕ‏)

ﯾﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺍٓﺩﮬﺎ ﺍٓﺧﺮﯼ ﺣﺼﮧ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮨﮯ:

ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺑﻜﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻳﻪ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺑﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺼﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﺬﻛﺮ ﻧﺴﺐ ﺣﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﻭﺯﺍﺩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻣﻪ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻯ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﺣﻜﻴﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻀﺮﺑﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺎﺽ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﻓﻮﻟﺪﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺤﻤﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻄﻊ ﻭﻏﺴﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻴﺎﺏ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﻮﺽ ﺯﻣﺰﻡ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻭﻻ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﺼﻌﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ۔
ﺍﺱ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮐﻮ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮐﮩﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺍٓﭖ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﺩﯾﺪ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ” ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ” ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺧﺒﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔

‏(1‏) ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻭﮨﻢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻣﺼﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻗﺮﺷﯽ ﺍﺳﺪﯼ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﯽ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻭﻻﺩ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﺴﺐ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺑﮍﮮ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺗﮭﮯ ۔ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﮐﮯ ﻋﻼﻭﮦ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺍﻧﺲ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﮏ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﮦ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﯿﻦ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ “ﺛﺒﺖ”،”ﺛﻘۃ” ﺍﻭﺭ “ﺻﺪﻭﻕ” ﺟﯿﺴﮯ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺳﮯ ﯾﺎﺩ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺟﻠﯿﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﺟﺲ ﮐﮯ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﯿﻦ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺆﯾﺪ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺑﻼ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻭﮨﻢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺑﺬﺍﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻭﮨﻢ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺑﮍﺍ ﺗﺴﺎﻣﺢ ﮨﮯ ۔

‏(2) ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺎ ﮐﮧ “ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﺧﺒﺮﻭﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺎ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﮯ” ﯾﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻋﺠﺎﺋﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﺗﺒﺼﺮﮦ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ:

ﺍﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤۃ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺪ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﯿﺎ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ﻟﻢ ﺍﺟﺪ ﻓﯽ ﮐﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﺷﯿﺌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺫٰﻟﮏ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﻥ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮬﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒﮧ، ﻣﻦ ﻋﺠﺎﺋﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﮐﻢ ﺍﻧﮧ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻓﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺐ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻧﮧ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ﺗﻌﻘﺒﮧ ﺑﺎﻧﮧ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤۃ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﯿﺎ ﻓﯽ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ ﻭﮐﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻼﺋﻖ ﺑﮧ ﺍﯼ ﯾﺎﺗﯽ ﺑﺘﻠﮏ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﯾۃ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺍﺗﺮﺓ ۔ ‏(ﺷﺒﮭﺎﺕ ﻭﺭﺩﻭ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﯾﺤﺘﺞ ﺑﮭﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﯿﻌۃ 136:1‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ: ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﮦ ﻣﺎﺟﺪﮦ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﮧ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺪ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻮﻑ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻨﻢ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺘﺐِ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﻼ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺷﺪﮦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﺟﻮﻑ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ۔ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﮦ ﻣﺎﺟﺪﮦ ﻧﮯ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻨﻢ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺑﺖ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﺧﺒﺮﯾﮟ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﯾﮧ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﮯ ﻋﺠﺎﺋﺐ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺘﺎً ﮨﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺍﺱ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺗﮭﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﻮ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﮯ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ۔

ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﺳﯿﻮﻃﯽ ﺷﺎﻓﻌﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺑﺘﺎﺅﮞ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺳﯿﻮﻃﯽ ﺟﻨﮭﯿﮟ ﻋﺎﻟﻢِ ﺑﯿﺪﺍﺭﯼ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﷺ ﮐﯽ ﺳﺘﺮ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﮧ ﺯﯾﺎﺭﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺷﺮﻑ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮨﻮﺍ. ﻭﮦ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻭﻱ 880:2 ﺩﺍﺭ ﻃﻴﺒﺔ ﺑﺮﺗﻮﺕ)

ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻮﻳﻠﻢ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺷُﻬﺒﺔ ﻧﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ:

ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ “ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﻙ” ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ۔ ‏(ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﻭﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ، ﺹ 660 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﻣﻮﺕ)

ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﺑﻼ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺻﺮﻑ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ “ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﮎ” ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﮐﻤﺰﻭﺭﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺟﻨﮑﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺫﮬﺒﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮬﮯ
ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯿﺎ؟ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﺳﯿﻮﻃﯽ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻭﻗﻊ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﻫﻞ ﻷﻧﻪ ﺳﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻟﻴﻨﻘﺤﻪ ﻓﺄﻋﻠﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻴﺔ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻭﻱ 113:1 ﺩﺍﺭ ﻃﻴﺒﺔ ﺑﺮ ﻭﺕ)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ: ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻏﻔﻠﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺳﺒﺐ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺴﻮﺩﮦ ﺗﯿﺎﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ، ﺍﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﺗﮭﯽ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﮨﻮ ﮔﯿﺎ ۔

ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺷﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﺎﻭﯼ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

‏(ﻭﻛﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﺪﺭﻙ) ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﻴﻦ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻓﺎﺗﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺴﺎﺑﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ‏( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻞ ‏) ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ، ﺑﺈﺩﺧﺎﻟﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ، ﺣﻤﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺤﻬﺎ ; ﺇﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺼﺐ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺭﻣﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ، ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ، ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻩ ۔ ﺑﻞ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ : ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺻﻨﻔﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ، ﻭﻗﺪ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻏﻔﻠﺔ ﻭﺗﻐﻴﺮ، ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻴﺴﺮ ﻟﻪ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮﻩ ﻭﺗﻨﻘﻴﺤﻪ ۔ ‏(ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺚ ﺑﺸﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻟﻠﻌﺮﺍﻗﻲ 54:1 ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‏)

ﺍﺱ ﻃﻮﯾﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﮕﻮ ﮐﺎ ﺧﻼﺻﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮﺍﺗﺮ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﺑﻼ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮨﮯ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺟﺲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﮐﮯ “ﻣﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒۃ” ﮐﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﻮ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﻧﮭﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 2

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺷﺎﮦ ﻭﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﮨﻠﻮﯼ ﺭﺣﻤۃ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ “ﺍﺯﺍﻟۃ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﺎﺀ” ﮐﺎ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﭘﮭﻼ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ
ﺷﺎﮦ ﻭﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﮨﻠﻮﯼ ﺭﺡ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺸﮭﻮﺭ ﺑﺮﯾﻠﻮﯼ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺍﭼﮭﺮﻭﯼ ﻧﮯ ﻭﮬﺎﺑﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮬﮯ.

ﺍﻭﺭﻇﺎﮬﺮ ﮬﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮑﮯ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﻭﮬﺎﺑﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮔﺴﺘﺎﺥ ﮬﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﻟﻔﻆ ﮬﮯ.

ﺗﻮ ﻧﻌﻮﺫﺑﺎﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮔﺴﺘﺎﺥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﺣﺠﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻃﻮﺭﭘﺮ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﮬﮯ.

ﺑﮭﺮﺣﺎﻝ ﺷﺎﮦ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﺎ ﮨﯽ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻋﻮﯼٰ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﺗﻮ ﺍٓﭖ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﮨﯽ ﻟﯽ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 3

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺳﺒﻂ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺯﯼ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ “ﺗﺬﮐﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﻮﺍﺹ” ﺳﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﯾﮧ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﺿﻌﯿﻒ ﮨﮯ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺳﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺯﯼ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺻﯿﻐﮧ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﺾ ﺳﮯ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﻣﻼﺣﻈﮧ ﮐﯿﺠﯿﮯ:

ﻭﺭﻭﯼ ﺍﻥ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺳﺪ ﮐﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻄﻮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﯿﺖ ﻭﮬﯽ ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻌﻠﯽ ‏(ﻉ‏) ﻓﻀﺮﺑﮭﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﻖ ﻓﻔﺘﺢ ﻟﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒﺔ ﻓﺪﺧﻠﺖ ﻓﻮﺿﻌﺘﮧ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ ﻭﮐﺬﺍ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﻭﻟﺪﺗﮧ ﺍﻣﮧ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﮑﻌﺒﺔ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺬﮐﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﻮﺍﺹ، ﺹ 10 ﺫﮐﺮ ﻧﺴﺐ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ، ﻓﺼﻞ ﻓﯽ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺗﮧ، ﻃﺒﻊ ﻃﮩﺮﺍﻥ‏)

ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺳﮯ ﭘﻮﺷﯿﺪﮦ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ “ﺭﻭﯼ” ﺳﮯ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﺩﺭﺟﮧ ﺻﺤﺖ ﮐﻮ ﻧﮭﯿﮟ ﭘﮭﻨﭽﺘﯽ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 4

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﺷﯿﺦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﻖ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﮨﻠﻮﯼ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ “ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ” ﺳﮯ ﺍﺭﺩﻭ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ
ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﻮﮞ، ﺷﯿﺦ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ: ﮔﻔﺘﮧ ﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﻭﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻮﻑ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ. ‏(ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ 531:2)

“ﮔﻔﺘﮧ ﺍﻧﺪ” ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ۔ ﮐﻮﻥ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﺼﺮﯾﺢ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﺨﻮﺑﯽ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ “ﮔﻔﺘﮧ ﺍﻧﺪ” ﺻﯿﻐﮧ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﺾ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﯿﮟ ۔

ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ 5

ﮐﮯ ﺗﺤﺖ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﮬﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﺣﻠﺒﯽ ﮐﯽ “ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﺒﻴﺔ” ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ “ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺧﺎﻧﮧ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ” ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻋﺮﺑﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺷﺎﯾﺪ ﻭﮦ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺳﮯ ﮐﺎﭘﯽ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ۔

ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺣﻠﺒﯽ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﺣﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﺍﻡ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ، ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻐﻴﺮﻩ ۔ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ۔ ‏(ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﺒﻴﺔ 202:1 ﺑﺎﺏ ﺗﺰﻭﺟﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺧﺪﻳﺠﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺧﻮﻳﻠﺪ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺦ، ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﺕ‏)

ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺣﻠﺒﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻗﻮﻝ ﮐﻮ ﺿﻌﯿﻒ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﮮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ۔ ‏

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﺮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﺟﮩﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮔﺎﮦ ﮐﮩﺎﮞ ﮨﮯ؟
ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ، ﺗﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ، ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺳﻲ ‏(ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﻰ: 832 ﻫـ) ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﻞ، ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﻜﺔ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ……… ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ : ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺭﺿﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ. ‏(ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻡ ﺑﺄﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﻡ 358:1 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﯿﺮﻭﺕ‏)

ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﺀ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻔﻲ، ﺑﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ، ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺑﺎﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﺀ ‏(ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﻰ 854) ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ:

ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺑﺄﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻟﺪ ……… ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺑﻪ ﺣﺠﺮ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ۔ ‏(ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ، ﺻﻔﺤﮧ 185 ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﺕ)

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮔﺎﮦ ﻧﺒﯽ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﷺ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮔﺎﮦ ﮐﮯ ﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻣﮑﮧ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﺑﻼ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺸﮩﻮﺭ ﮨﮯ ۔ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺩﺭﻭﺍﺯﮮ ﭘﺮ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﮨﮯ.

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﺧﺎﻥ “ﺗﺤﻔﮧ ﺍﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﺸﺮﯼ” ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﮧ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﺳﺪ ﮐﻮ ﻭﺣﯽ ﺁﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺧﺎﻧﮧ ﮐﻌﺒﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮨﺎﮞ ﺑﭽﮯ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺪﺍﺋﺶ ﮐﺮ، ﯾﮧ ﺳﺐ ﺟﮭﻮﭦ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮯ ﭘﺮ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ ۔” ‏(ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﺭﺿﻮﯾﮧ 193:15 ﺍﻭﺭ 248:15 ﺭﺿﺎ ﻓﺎﺅﻧﮉﯾﺸﻦ)

THE BID’AH EXHIBITION OF RELICS

By Mujlisul Ulama

The Bid’atis and Qabar Pujaaris in South Africa are organizing an exhibition to display certain relics which they attribute to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

These relics, even if we assume are authentic, may not be utilized for merrymaking exhibitions and functions of the type these Grave-Worshippers are planning.

It is necessary to regard the relics with circumspect. Without out rightly denying the authenticity of the relics, it is necessary that Muslims should not embroil themselves with the Qabar Pujaaris who are going to great lengths to stay in the business of fleecing the ignorant moron masses. The ultimate objective of Bid’atis is always the monetary goal.

The huge amount of money – public money – which will be squandered for an exhibition which has absolutely no basis in the Sunnah, renders the organizers Brothers of the Devils. Allah Ta’ala, in the Qur’aan Majeed, brands the wasters as “Ikhwaanush Shayaateen” (Brothers of the Devils).

It should be remembered and well understood, that the Sahaabah and Taabieen had many genuine relics of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But never did any of those devotees and lovers of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) resort to exhibiting the relics. Numerous genuine relics are in various museums all over the world. These relics were well-guarded by the Khulafa and Sultans. But never did any one of them stoop to the level of the Bid’atis to organize exhibitions.

Many relics are in the museum in Turkey where these items were kept for many centuries. But never was there an exhibition. Only Bid’atis organize exhibitions, for this is one of their stunts for staying in business. All their Bid’ati and Qabar Puja stunts are organized for the boodle. The exhibition planned by the Qabar Pujaaris is akin to idolatry and qabar puja which are practices in which these miscreants excel.

Do not be bamboozled by the names of personages who are Sayyids. The criterion is the Shariah, not personages. Just imagine the funfare and the dust being kicked up to display relics. It demonstrates a disingenuous and desperate attempt to churn considerable smoke to stay in the money-business and to rope in morons into their satanic snares of Bid’ah. Lacking in entirety of Shar’i support and evidence for the multitude of their Bid’ah and Qabar Puja practices, they sniff around for support for their nefarious acts of Bid’ah. Now they have managed to produce the relics issue to support their narrative of bid’ah corruption. Do not be beguiled by this exhibition which has absolutely no Shariah significance.

We are aware of an honest Brother who is in possession of the Mubaarak Hair of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In his possession the Blessed Hair has grown over the centuries, and the kind Brother has generously bestowed to a number of other genuine Muslims some of the Mubaarak Hair. But there is no hue and cry, and no publicity about this valuable and significant possession which a number of Muslims in South Africa have. On the contrary it is held a secret so that bid’ah does not gain admission. But these Qabar Pujaaris are perpetually under Shaitaan’s spell and influence. They are Kilaabun Naar (The Dogs of the Fire) about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who honours a man of bid’ah, verily, he has aided in the demolition of Islam.”

The wasteful, bid’ah exhibition will be indulging in waste, merrymaking and bid’ah, travelling from city to city and have funfare camel rides, etc. in Jeddah.

These wayward, miscreant bid’atis are making a circus of the holy relics – if indeed these are genuine – with their exhibition of riya and takabbur.

It should be well understood that relics of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah had always existed since the very first era of Islam. The Mubaarak Hair of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was used by the Sahaabah for shifa’ (curing) of sicknesses. These relics were preserved with respect and love. But never was a circus-type exhibition ever made. What the Qabar Pujaaris are doing, is the introduction of another bid’ah which could be added to the long list of their evil Bid’aat.

Whenever a Deeni issue is to be undertaken, the very first incumbent consideration is to ascertain the action and attitude of the Sahaabah and the Salafus Saaliheen on the contemplated issue. It is then imperative to adopt their tareeqah, and not fabricate and fraud shaitaani and kuffaar stupidities to be passed off as acts of reverence and ibaadat. If the contemplated act is in entirety a new development for which there is no specimen, example or directive in the Qur’aan, Hadith and in the Tareeqah of the Salafus Saaliheen, then we shall be guided by the principles of the Fuqaha. But the Bid’atis look askance at the methods of the kuffaar, the Yahood and Nasaara, and follow suit, emulating them right into the “lizard’s hole” –in the phraseology of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Exhibitions, circuses and merrymaking functions and ‘jalsahs’, be these so-called ‘islaahi’, are all the stupid-fangled innovations of the kuffaar.

At this juncture, we are not questioning the authenticity of the relics. But the Shariah does not permit such futile exhibitions which open the door for bid’ah, fisq and fujoor. It is not permissible to participate in any way whatsoever in the planned bid’ah exhibition. And this is also the Fatwa of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (Rahmatullah alayh).

HONOURING BID’ATIS IS HARAAM

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who honours a man of bid’ah has aided in the demolition of Islam.”

A CONCERNED BROTHER FROM U.K. WRITES:

“I would be grateful if The Majlis could provide some valuable comment on the following Malfooz: 

“Hakim al-Islam Qari Muhammad Tayyib Sahib (rahmatullahi alayhi) relates:

‘I witnessed Mawlana Thanawi (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) differering with Mawlana Ahmad Ridha Khan marhoom in many issues, such as qiyam, ‘urs, milad etc., but whenever mentioning him in a gathering he would say “Mawlana Ahmad Ridha Khan Sahib”. Once a person in the gathering said “Ahmad Ridha”, without using the title mawlana. Hadhrat rebuked him and said angrily, “He is still a scholar, even if we differ with him. You are disrespecting his position; how is this permissible? Our difference of opinion is in its place. It is a different matter that we consider him to be wrong and do not agree with him. But what is the meaning of humiliating him and disrespecting him?”

‘The Mawlana opposed to Mawlana Thanawi (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) was extremely disrespectful. But Mawlana Thanawi (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) was from the people of knowledge. Whenever someone was mentioned, he considered respect to be imperative, even though it is of an open opponent. One should not lose hold of respect.’

This Malfooz is being propagated with great relish by Mudaahins (spineless, toadish psycophants and bootlickers) who have a Nafsaani inclination to a pet deviant or to some deviant group(s). Numerous websites have cited this Malfooz within a short space of time.

The term ‘respect’ can have various connotations. However, it is clear that the Mudaahins who are exploiting this Malfooz intend the meaning that is Haraam according to the Shariah. One popular modernist “Maulana” who is liberal in his praise for, and interaction with certain segments of the Ahlul Bid’ah, issued the following message to accompany this Malfooz:

The term “Mawlana” is an honorific title and it’s used for respect. The following anecdote, in the Urdu picture, is a good exemplification of respect despite having differences.”

Rather than resorting to a variety of Ta’weels (interpretation) that can easily be made in regards to this incident that occurred in a private setting, in order to exonerate Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi from the act of conferring respect to a man of Bid’ah, the Mudaahins are exploiting this Malfooz to justify transgressing a well-known ruling of the Shariah whilst also attempting to implicate Hazrat Maulana Thanwi (rahmatullahi alayh) in their crime.

The Fuqaha have conveyed Ijma’ on the prohibition of conferring respect to a Mudhil (one who misguides), even if he is from Ahlus Sunnah, let alone one who is outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah. Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah alayh), one from many who could be quoted, said:

All of them (i.e. the Salaf-us-Saaliheen) reached consensus on manifesting hatred for the oppressors and innovators, and all who disobeyed Allah with a sin that extends from himself to others because, verily the evil of the kaafir is not contagious, for verily, Muslims are aware of his kufr, hence they will not heed what he says since he does not attribute Islam to himself nor the belief of Haqq. However, the Bid’ati who calls to bid’ah and believes that he is calling to the haqq, is a cause for the deviation of people, hence his evil is contagious.  Despising him, vilifying him for his bid’ah, and to inculcate aversion in people for him are of greater importance (than disparaging the kuffaar).”

Even if, for argument’s sake, no possible Ta’weel could be provided to exonerate Hazrat Maulana Thanwi, then to exploit this incident to justify transgressing a rule of the Shariah, rather than set it aside as an error, is the very essence of Hazrat-worship. (The jaahil opportunists are not worshipping Hadhrat Thanvi. In fact, they have no affinity with him. They are merely misusing Hadhrat Thanvi’s malfooth for justifying their compromise with baatil and its votaries. –The Majlis) In fact, this trend of extracting a Haraam interpretation from statements of  the Ulama, which can be subject to various legitimate interpretations, in order to override the Shariah is becoming increasingly common today. Furthermore, the liberals (those suffering from the malady of compound ignorance – The Majlis) of this age have made a vile habit of scavenging for the slips and tafarrudaat (isolated eccentricities) of senior Ulama from the past. Then they employ such tafarrudaat to justify baatil and bid’ah, thus flagrantly violating even those rulings of the Shariah which have been established by the Consensus of the Fuqaha.

In response to this Malfooz, one Mufti issued the following message:

“In Muhannad, Ahmad Rida Khan is referred to as a “Muharrif” (distorter) and a “Dajjal-Makkaar” (scheming dajjal). Hazrat Thanawi was a signatory of Muhannad. (This fact alone cancels the ambiguous malfooth. It is tantamount to a retraction by Hadhrat Thanvi – Rahmatullah alayh – The Majlis)

In al-Shihaab al-Thaaqib, Hazrat Madani refers to Ahmad Rida Khan as “Mujaddid al-Takfir”, “Dajjal”, amongst other terms.

This attitude makes more sense from the perspective of expressing bugdh for Ahl al-Bida and those who call to misguidance.

“Whoever shows respect to a Saahib Bid’ah has aided in the destruction of Islam.” (i.e. whoever does this in a public way)” – (In fact, even in privacy – The Majlis) – (End of the Brother’s letter)

OUR RESPONSE (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Ahmed Ridha Khan was an incorrigible Bid’ati – a destroyer of the Sunnah and a demolisher of the Deen. About such bid’atis, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “He who respects a man of bid’ah aids in the demolition (destruction) of Islam.” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also said: “Bughd (hatred) is for the Sake of Allah.”

When a man is involved in the elimination of the Sunnah and the structuring and introduction of Bid’ah, he is the enemy of Allah Ta’ala.  Bid’atis are referred to in the Hadith as Kilaabun Naar (The Dogs of the Fire). How is it possible to abrogate this Hadith with an error or an opinion of a senior?

The instruction to have hatred for the sake of Allah Ta’ala, brings within its purview Bid’atis, and to a greater degree Bid’atis of the calibre of Ahmed Ridha Khan who was the imaam of Bid’ah, a Muharrif (an interpolater of falsehood), DajjaalMakkaar (Deceit), Mujaddid-e-Takfeer (Renewer/Reviver of branding Muslims kaafir), etc. These were designations conferred on him by some of our Akaabir Ulama.

Furthermore there is Ijma’ of the Fuqaha on the issue of not honouring a Bid’ati. In the light of  the Ahaadith and the Ijma’,  the  view of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh)  has to be incumbently set aside as an error based on lack of information  regarding the true beliefs of Ahmed Ridha Khan, or an idiosyncrasy. Even great Fuqaha sometimes display peculiar views as an effect of their tabiyat (natural disposition) which sometimes overshadows reality and rectitude. Regarding such idiosyncratic views, Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) as well as other illustrious Fuqaha, said:

“He who holds on to the nawaadir of the Ulama, verily, he has made an exit from Islam.”

Some decades ago, Maulana Manzoor No’maani (Rahmatullah alayh) had visited South Africa. He was our guest. He was famous for his debates with the Bid’atis. He personally mentioned to us:

“I went to visit Hadhrat Thanvi in Thanabovan.  Hadhrat Thanvi said to me:

‘It appears to me that misinformation has reached him (referring to Ahmad Ridha) about us, hence the misunderstanding. How is it possible for him to accuse us of so much falsehood despite being an Aalim?’

From this statement, it is clear that Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) had no clarity of the shaitaaniyat of Ahmed Ridha Khan. Maulana Manzoor No’maani then responded as follows:

“Hadhrat! It is not an issue of misunderstanding. The fact is that Allah Ta’ala has made maskh of his aql.  Hadhrat Thanvi then did not comment further.”

Maskh means disfigurement. In other words, Ridha Khan’s were convoluted to the extent of totally blinding him of the Haqq and understanding baatil to be haqq.

On account of this deviate’s profession of takfeer and slander of great Auliya, his intelligence suffered from the pangs of satanic convolution. Thus, his ability of distinguishing between Haqq and baatil, Sunnah and bid’ah was extinguished His deliberate lies and mutilation of the texts of our Akaabireen to cloak it with his fabricated theories of kufr, clearly reveals his dajjaaliyat. Whatever rubbish he had attributed to the Ulama of Deoband, and on which hallucinated basis he had branded these Auliya and Ulama as ‘kaafir’, was glaringly false. There is not an iota of truth in what he had claimed.

The spineless molvis of today who labour to strike up haraam dalliances with the Qabar Pujaaris and with every group of deviates of whatever kufr persuasion they may be, despite their academic and spiritual bankruptcy, are fully aware of the fact that the mujaddid of shaitaani bid’ah, Ridha Khan, had branded all of the Ulama of Deoband, Akaabir as well as Asaaghir, as kaafir. This alone conspicuously evidences the divine disfigurement of his brains and the ruin of his heart. A wicked transmogrification of his intelligence was effected by his inherent Satanism.

Now what do these spineless juhhaal expect from the Ulama-e-Haqq? Do they expect us to elevate and propel the jaahil Ridha Khan into the loftiest spatial and celestial heights on the basis of Hadhrat Thanvi’s error of judgment? If Hadhrat Thanvi advised a person to prefix the name of the mudhil agent of Iblees with the honorific title of ‘Maulana’, it never ever justifies respecting and honouring the devil when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had categorically prohibited the conference of accolades to those who are designated as Kilaabun Naar. The Arsh of Allah Azza Wa Jal shudders and the plot to demolish Islam is set in motion when a bid’ati is praised or honoured. Said our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“He who honours a man of Bid’ah, aids in the demolition of Islam.”

These moron, spineless cranks who are seeking to extravasate capital from Hadhrat Thanvi’s error, are enemies of the Sunnah, hence they seek to  honour morons and deviates who conspire to undermine the Deen, and the  way of  achieving this satanic objective urinated  into their brains by the devil is  to the Ulama-e-Haqq a target for criticism. These Ulama are the bulwarks of Allah’s Deen. They should understand that the errors of the Ulama regardless of their lofty status, never constitute Shar’i daleel. The Sunnah is not scaled on the personal preference or attitude of an Aalim even if his soul happens to flutter around the Arsh. The Haqq is measured and ascertained on the Standard and Scale of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the Dalaa-il which the Aimmah Mujtahideen formulated on the basis of these two primary sources of the Shariah.

Maulana Manzoor No’maani (Rahmatullah alayh) was well aware of the intricacies of the shenanigans of these Bid’atis and of Ridha Khan. On the other hand, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) lacked such information which confirms the true evil bid’ati status of Ridha, hence his mild approach. Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Hadhrat  Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani and the many other senior Ulama of Deoband were more aware of  the personality of the bid’ati dajjaal, hence they named and branded him with the epithets which were most deserving of him. The spineless molvis and deviates who are at pains to collaborate with bid’atis, heretics and zindeeqs seek justification for their haraam and miserable attitude on the basis of an error of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh). They cast themselves into deliberate blindness regarding the beliefs of kufr, bid’ah and shirk of these Qabar Pujaaris – they pretend to be unaware of the notoriety of their rotten characters and their factory of takfeer – they overlook all the Satanism of the fraud, Ridha Khan, but they deem it appropriate to criticize and malign those who uphold the Sunnah.

The moron spineless molvis are stupidly using the personal idiosyncratic preference, in fact error, of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) to scuttle the Ijma’ of the Ummah on the prohibition of honouring/praising a man of bid’ah. For these morons, Allaamah Sha’raani sounded an adequate warning: “He who grabs hold (as daleel) of the nawaadir of the Ulama, verily has made an exit from Islam.”

Even if we have to assume that Hadhrat Thanvi had in fact held the view of addressing the Bid’ati with a title of respect, it will be haraam to make taqleed of such a glaring error. All Ulama, regardless of their lofty status, even Aimmah Mujtahideen err. It is haraam to make taqleed of their errors. The Qur’aan Majeed explicitly forbids this practice of stupid ‘taqleed’ by means of which Bani Israaeel scuttled the Tauraah with corrupt fatwas of their Ulama.

At one stage, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) used to attend the Meelaad functions of the Bid’atis in Kanpur. He would only give a bayaan of the Seerat and leave. When Hadhrat Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) was informed of this, he wrote a long letter explaining the grievous error of attending the function of the Bid’atis. In several letters to and fro, Hadhrat Thanvi accepted his error and abandoned attending such functions.

There are many issues on which Hadhrat Thanvi had erred and for which he had issued retractions. The juhala molvis of our time who are traitors to the Deen and who spinelessly participate in all functions of bid’ah, fisq and fujoor, search for the errors of the seniors, which they stupidly and satanically use as ‘daleel’ for their haraam views and bid’ah activities. They will ignore the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha and cling to the error like a dog clings to bone to deceive themselves and mislead others.

It is haraam to cite Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi’s error to scuttle the direct command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on which is based the Ijmaa’ of the Fuqaha. When all the Fuqaha and the Ahaadith prohibit honouring and respecting a man of bid’ah, then it is  contumacy bordering on kufr to attempt to cancel this Ijma’ on the basis of an isolated view or an error of a senior. Thus, the view expressed by Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) in the Malfooth cited by you, has no validity. It is haraam to refer to the Bid’ati Dajjaal with a title of honour. It has to be incumbently set aside.

MADRASATUSH SHAYAATEEN WAL MUBTADI’EEN – NEW HAUNT FOR BENONI BID’ATIS!

By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Whatever is innovated into this Deen of ours, verily, it is mardood (accursed and rejected).”

It has been brought to our notice that the Benoni Bid’atis are gloating and bloating about their new Bid’ati Madrasah in Benoni deceptively promoted as ‘Madrasatul Madina’! The deception of their new so-called Madrasah is not hidden to people of intelligence:

1. Misusing the word: ‘Madinah’.

It has become a norm amongst many Fussaaq, Zindeeqs, Mudhilleen, Bid’atis and Shayaateen to misuse Islamic nomenclature for the sake of deceiving the masses.

What is the purpose of utilizing the word ‘Madinah’ for your so-called Madrasah of Bid’ah? For a couple of centuries since the era of Nabi Sallallau Alayhi Wasallam, there was no Moulood in Madinah Munawwarah. Do you Bid’atis understand the Deen better than the hundreds of thousands of Sahaabah, Taabie’een, their students, the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, the Muhadditheen, etc. who never ever held a stupid Moulood carnival or Shaitaani Meelaad party in the name of the Deen!!!

People of intelligence are not duped by ‘Madinah’ designations misutilized by Fussaaq and Zindeeqs such as the Madinah Institute of Cape Town, The ‘Madinan Path’ by Murtad Abu Layth of Birmingham and now the silly ‘Madrasatul Madina’ of the Fussaaq Bida’tis of Benoni.

The word ‘Madinah’ is used by the corrupt Moulood Bid’atis to convey the impression that they are on the Tareeqah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam.

But No! These Bid’atis are the followers of Shaytaan. Is it the way of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam and the Sahaabah to indulge in music at the Qabrastaan (cemetery)? Whose way are you Bid’atis following when you’ll indulge in Kufr, Shirk and Qawaali at the Shirki haunt of the Mausoluem of Khalid Shah which deserves to be flattened to the ground!

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

Music is Haraam – but you Shayaateen indulge in music and then too at the cemetery. Have you no shame and respect for the Amwaat? Have you no fear for Allah, O Benoni Bid’ati morons? Do these Bid’atis even have brains???

They use ‘Madinah’ in their name, but they indulge in Bid’ah, Fisq, Fujoor and behayaai! They are so deviated that they don’t even know the Laws of Hijaab properly!

If they believe that their stupid Madrasah on Drakensberg road is in accordance to the teachings of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, then they should demolish the Shaitaani Mazaar of Bid’ati Khalid Shah in Benoni first, before blurting out stupidities and rubbish in the name of Madinah Munawwarah.

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

2. Another silly name is Dawat-e-Islami.

They are not Dawat-e-Islami. They are Dawat-e-Shaytaani and Dawat-e-Bidati! What is so Islamic about their merrymaking Grand Moulood and Grand Meelaad Bid’ah parties of Fisq, Fujoor and Bid’ah?

Moulood is Bid’ah and will remain Bid’ah until Qiyaamah. Saaberie Chisty, Sultan Bahu, Dawat-e-Islami and all these Ridawi Moulood-Mawlid chaps are bankrupt when it comes to Shar’i Dalaail on the issue of Meelaad-Moulood or whatever these Kilaabur Naar (dogs of the Fire) Bid’atis have to call it!

3. Abdush Shaytaan Hamidi:

Another deviate is this Abdush Shaytaan chap of ‘Dawat-e-Shaytaani’ of Johannesburg. This Abdush Shaytaan chap lures even women out of their homes for his stupid so-called Grand Meelaads. It is clear that Abdush Shaytaan does not know whether he is going or coming!

When the Shariah does not allow women to attend the Masaajid, we find these corrupt Bid’atis such as CTIEC, PIEC, Saaberie Chisty, Sultan Bahu, Mawlid chaps, so-called ‘Madinah’ institute, ‘Ghazaali’ institute of deviates, and others luring women out of their homes to their Bid’ah Urs programs of Nafsaaniyyat and rubbish!

They have parties at the Haraam Shirki Mazaar of Khalid Shah. And people even make Tawaaf and Sajdah of his grave which is Kufr! And without any skin on their faces, these Bid’ati liars shamelessly deny all the Shirk and Kufr which take place at the Khalid Shah Mausoleum of Fisq and Fujoor! Just imagine! They have Qawaali-music at the graveyard! And according to all four Math-habs, music is Haraam!

They claim to be Sunnis, but they indulge in music, don’t make proper Hijaab, intermingling of the sexes take place, they indulge in weird acts of Bid’ah and they still have the audacity to dub their Bid’ah haunt as ‘Madrasatul Madinah’. Who are these Dawat-e-Shaytaani and Moulood Bid’atis trying to fool???

And what about singing for an audience and women listening to it! Is this what Islam teaches us? Are these Haraam acts in any way gleaned from the Mubarak Sunnat and Seerat? They are not ‘Sunni’. They don’t follow the Sunnah! They follow Shaytaan. These Moulood Bid’atis are Shaytaani – very far from being Sunni!!!

AN APPEAL TO ALL GENUINE & TRUE SUNNI MUSLIMS:

FOR THE SAFETY OF YOUR OWN IMAAN AND DEEN, STAY AWAY FROM THESE MOULOOD BID’ATIS AND ALL ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVIL MAWLID/MEELAAD/MOULOOD AND MAUSOLEA BID’AH GANG OF DEVIATES AND SHAYAATEEN. THEIR EVIL SO-CALLED MOLVIS MISLEADING THE UMMAH ARE IN FACT FUSSAAQ JUHALA. THEY ARE SIGNS OF QIYAAMAH. MAY ALLAH SAVE US FROM HIS IMPENDING ATHAAB. AAMEEN

The Past Fitnah of Takfir on Mujaddid Alf Thani (Rahmatullahi Alayh) – A Historical Overview

Though this post might be irrelevant in today’s era where Shaykh Mujaddid Alf Thani (rahimahullah) is revered and respected by each and every quarters of the Muslim Ummah, I am still posting this so that we come to understand that even such great personalities were targetted by their contemporary bid’atis.

Mujaddid Alf Thani (rahimahullah) was against all the prevalent bid’ah of his age and he objected them in his Maktubat (letters of naseehat which he sent to various chiefs), due to this, the bid’atis of his time opposed him and fabricated statements from his books and made takfir of him in various ways just like Ahmad Raza Khan would do to the Akabireen of Deoband in the preceding centuries. The pious Ulama of Hijaz too were made to issue the fatwa of Takir upon the Mujaddid due to mis-representations of his works.

The Bid’atis, due to having no academic proofs from the 4 Madhabs to defend their bid’ah stunts, tend to fabricate statements from the books of those who oppose their bid’ah and shirki beliefs, various mas’alah and statements from (other than opposing bid’ah) are made the targets so that the awaam never get to focus on the reason for their opposition of the bid’ah acts, their characters are assassinated. These bid’atis follow “through deceptions they shall attack others” kind of operations because of their in-ability to defend bid’ah and shirk.

Whatever their modus operandi might be, by the Grace of Allah Ta’ala these lies and fabrications of the bid’atis never lasted long enough and the truth prevailed always.

Following is an analysis taken from a treatise of Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (rahimahullah) in which he discusses in detail the conspiracies against the Mujaddid:

The character and thought of Shaikh Ahmad Mujaddid Sirhindi bring out his achievements which are definitely great and outstanding, but this appraisal would remain incomplete if a mention is not made of his adversaries who started opposing him in his own lifetime. Certain writings of the Mujaddid in his letters and other works, explaining higher reaches of the spiritual realm, did give rise to discordant notes against him.

The lasting fame and popularity achieved by the Mujaddid during his lifetime raised his prestige outside the country no less than the recognition accorded to him in the intellectual and ruling circles of India. Nevertheless, some of his teachings were so unfamiliar to the people in general that even the learned among them found it hard to accept them. They were shocked by his views which were against the accepted thought and inherited custom of the community. This reaction was not unusual: all those who are endowed with a nimble mind and vital impulse have to go beyond the current norms of thought and practice with the result that they find themselves at odds with their contemporaries. The Mujaddid had been preaching against the so-called virtuous innovations, respectful prostration to the mystic guides, musical recitation normally accepted as a means of inducing ecstasy, verbal repetition of the niyat (intention) before the prayers, congregational prayers of tahajjud, celebrations in connection with the prophet’s birthday, infallibility of intuitive insights and spiritual knowledge of the mystics as against the legal pronouncements of the celebrated jurists and similar other practices in vogue among almost all the sufi orders of his day which were then employed for drawing out the deepest spiritual emotions. And, to crown it all, he had the courage to criticise the Shaikh Akbar and his doctrine of Unity of Being which was then accepted as the acme of spiritual perfection and the highest achievement of gnostic intuition. He went even a step further and presented his own finding — the doctrine of Wahdat-us-shuhud — as a parallel mystical experience to that of Shaikh Akbar. It would have really been surprising — an event unheard of in the history of revivalist movements or even arts and literature — if no dissenting voice had been raised towards the end of his life span or immediately after his death.

The opposition to the Mujaddid can be classified under two broad headings:

1. One of it was caused either by misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of his teachings and it vanished as soon as the misapprehension was removed or the false construction put on his ideas was detected.

2. The second type of antagonism was the product of a contrary belief or thought or else a personal antipathy to him.

SHAYKH ‘ABDUL HAQ’s RETRACTION

The friction between the Mujaddid and Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dihlawi (d. 1052/1642), a sincere and pious scholar, falls under the first category. He was also one of the spiritual successors of Khwaja Baqi Billah and thus allied to the Mujaddid, but he expressed surprise and resentment on certain views and statements of the Mujaddid and came out with them in one of his letters addressed to the latter. The views, attributed to the Mujaddid in the letter of Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dihlawi, have been found to be incorrect or distorted by those who have studied it at length. Actually this was a personal letter written by Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq to a colleague and it was not included by him in the compilation of his epistles known as the Al-Makatib wal-Rasail. According to Mirza Mazhar Janjanan, Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq had even directed his successors to destroy this letter.

The underlying idea in the letter of Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq was that certain statements of the Mujaddid were contemptuous of the great precursors who were unanimously held in esteem by the entire community;. This letter has, however, been examined more than once and the contention of Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq has been refuted by several scholars. The letters of the Mujaddid as well as his life-long endeavours give a lie to the charge against him. An important reason for Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq’s opposition to Shaikh Ahmad was his unbounded devotion and love for Shaikh ‘Abdul Qadir Jilani who has been, in a unique way, the inspirer of millions. Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq shared the ardent affection evoked by the lovesome spirituality of Shaikh ‘Abdul Qadir in the hearts of vast numbers and thus he could not countenance what he considered as the assertion of anybody’s superiority over Shaikh ‘Abdul Qadir. This point has also been extensively dealt with by several writers in a satisfactory manner.

It is not necessary to re-examine Mujaddid’s letter in question or the different issues that arise from it for one can go through the writings on the subject, some of which have been mentioned earlier. These studies prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that most of the statements attributed to the Mujaddid were deliberate perversions or, at best, misconstructions on his sententious expressions. It is rather surprising bow Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq allowed himself to accept such reports and quoted them in his letter. Shah Ghulam ‘All Dihlawi who is typically solemn and sober-minded has after citing such concocted passages expressed his surprise in these words: “God forbid! What a monstrous lie and fake material! None of the Mujaddid’s letters include these passages. May Allah forgive the Shaikh.”

Since, however, Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq’s criticism of the Mujaddid was motivated by his sincerity and zeal for religion, he lost no time in making amends as soon as his misunderstanding was removed. His subsequent letters to the Mujaddid as well as other contemporary mystics bespeak of his admiration and high regard for the latter. In one of his letters written after his retraction from the criticism against the Mujaddid, Shaikh ‘Abdul Haq wrote to Khwaja Husam-ud-din of Delhi.

“May Allah keep you well and allow your sincere disciples to enjoy your gracious patronage. The reason for not being able to ascertain about your health during the last two or three days was either because of my sluggishness, a common human weakness, or my assumption that you would be alright in a few days. I hope that you would now let me know about your health.

“I am looking forward to the happy tidings from Shaikh Ahmad. I hope that the invocations of his adorers would be answered by God, and they would surely be efficacious. This poorling is nowadays feeling a close spiritual affinity with him; nothing of human dispositions and mental attitudes stand in-between us. I do not know why it is so. But apart from it, the right and proper course as well as the way dictated by prudence is that one should not bear any ill-will against such a venerable person. I find my own heart so very inclined towards him that it is difficult to express my attachment to him in words. God alone is capable of inclining the hearts and changing dispositions. Those who cannot see beyond the external appearances would not believe it, but I myself do not know what has happened to me and how it has come about. God knows best the truth of the matter.”

FATWA OF HIJAZ SCHOLARS ON MUJADDID ALF THANI

We may now turn to an Arab scholar of Hijaz, Shaikh Hasan al-Ujaimi, who respresents the second group of Shaikh Ahmad’s opponents. In the introduction of his book entitled As-Sarim al-Hindi fi Jawab-i-Sawal ‘an Kalamat-i-Sirhindi, it has been stated that a juristic opinion has been sought from the scholars of Mecca and Medina in regard to certain heterodox statements made by Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi in his letters. “The enquirers have asked,” he writes, “to expound the view of the shari‘ah about any one making such unsound statements, or giving tongue to them, or entertaining a belief in them, or else preaching them.” Thereafter, the author says, “my revered teacher Shaikh Mulla Ibrahim b. Hasan Kaurani directed me to write a rejoinder giving legal opinions on the subject and also to mention the opinions expressed on the subject by other scholars of the two holy cities.” Shaikh Hasan has also copied the legal opinions of his teachers, Mulla Ibrahim Kaurani of Medina and Saiyid Jamal-ud-din Muhammad b. ‘Abdur-Rasul al-Barzanjl in his book.

It would be of interest to know something about the two scholars quoted by Shaikh Hasan. The former, that is, Mulla Ibrahim Kaurani of Medina finds a mention in the Anfas-ul-Arifin of Shah Wallullah. He was father of Shaikh Abu Tahir Kurdi, the scholar under whom Shah Wallullah studied hadith. He had accused an eminent scholar and mystic of his time, Shaikh Yahya Shawi, of having anthropomorphic view of God for which he was turned out of his court by a minister of the Turkish Empire. The incident is but an example of his being rash and short-tempered. Saiyid Muhammad al-Barzanji, the second jurist cited by Shaikh Hasan in his support, is stated to be sulky by Shah Waliullah.

It is also noteworthy that in a fatwa, the legal position stated in the light of Islamic law by a juris-consult is always based on facts narrated by an inquirer. The jurists are not judges, nor do they have time and resources to record the evidences or make personal enquiries before giving their opinions. It is also not incumbent on them to find out whether the oral of written statements attributed to a certain person and submitted to them for legal opinion are correct or not. Thus, there is – every reason to believe that the above-mentioned juris-consults would not have gone through the Maktubat of Shaikh Ahmad. It would have not been possible for them to spare some of their time spent in studies and teaching, to make enquiries about the beliefs and statements attributed to Shaikh Ahmad. There was no scholar having first-hand information about Shaikh Ahmad in Mecca or Medina in those days.

As for the mental grasp, truthfulness and conscientiousness of the inquirer seeking juristic opinion about Shaikh Ahmad is concerned, only one example is enough to illustrate his ignorance and improbity. The observation of Shaikh Ahmad about the essence of the K’aba affirmed by him as divulging spiritual secrets, has been interpreted by the inquirer as his denial to recognise its present structure as the sacred mosque which amounted to infidelity. He says in his presentment that one of his unsound utterances is the denial of the present, well-known edifice of K‘aba as the sacred mosque.

This assertion can now be compared with the fascination and zeal expressed by Shaikh Ahmad for paying a visit to the holy mosque written in a letter to Shaikh Taj-ud-din of Sanbhal just after the latter’s return from the pilgrimage.

“Just as the K’aba is, in the estimation of this humble self, the object of prostration for all form and bodies created by God (whether they be human beings or angels), its essence is also the sanctorum of divine service for the essences of all forms and bodies. Its reality surpasses all realities and its perfection predominates over all the realities of other things. It is like an intervening stage between the realities of the world and the celestial realities.”

The instance cited here fully illustrates the worth and soundness of the fatawa based on linguistically strained or even wilfully misrepresented writings of Shaikh Ahmad. Still, the jurists who declared Shaikh Ahmad to be an infidel also said that:

“However, it is not improbable that God might have bestowed His favour on the believer in these doctrines and the scriber of these writings, and he might have died as a true believer. This is what so often happens to His bondsmen: for, thus He demonstrates His mercy on several occasions. One of the grounds supporting this assumption is that some of his progeny who came for pilgrimage to the holy cities expressed their desire to qualify for the academic degree in hadith, and they told that their spiritual way consisted of following the sunnah of the Prophet and walking in his footsteps. They obtained the certificates of proficiency from the scholars of hachth like Imam Zainul ‘Abidin Tabari, and so highly satisfied and pleased was our Shaikh ‘Isa Muhammad b. al- Maghribi J’afri with them that he got himself initiated in the Naqshbandiyah order with a view to receiving the blessings of venerated mystics among the ancestors of the latter.”

The author’s solicitude for truthfulness is as much apparent from this quotation as it shows that his legal statements were based on distorted facts presented to him. It also divulges the diffidence of the jurisconsult in pronouncing an opinion hostile to Shaikh Ahmad, which, ultimately, had to be amended because of the noble behaviour and spiritual attainments of Khwaja Muhammad M’asum as later on witnessed by him in the two holy cities. In fact, one of the respected scholars of the place, Shaikh ‘Isa al-Maghribi took the oath of fealty on the hands of Khwaja M‘asum and was initiated in the Naqshbandiyah order. Shah Waliullah writes about Shaikh ‘Isa al-Maghribi in the Anfas ul-‘Arifin:

“In all respects he was a well-read scholar and teacher of great many theologians of the two holy cities. He was a colossus of knowledge pertaining to hadith and qirat. Saiyid Umar Ba Hasan used to say that if anybody wanted to see a saint, he ought to meet him.”

Shortly thereafter a scholar belonging to the Mujaddidyah order, Muhammad Beg al-Uzbeki went to Hijaz from India. He wrote Atiyat al-Wahhab al-Fasalah bayna al-Khata’ wa al- Sawab to defend Shaikh Ahmad in which, he demonstrated that the condemnation of Shaikh Ahmad was based on faulty translations and wilful misinterpretatfon of his writings. He cited several examples of such misrenderings with the result that a number of scholars in Arabia abandoned their erroneous notions and wrote books in the defence of Shaikh Ahmad. One of those who supported Muhammad Beg was Hasan b. Muhammad Murad Ullah al-Tunisi al-Makki whose ‘Al-‘Arf al-Nadi fi Nusrat-al-Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi brings out the unreliable testimony of wrong and misleading translations on which the campaign against Shaikh Ahmad was based by his detractors. Ahmad al-Yashishi al-Misri al-Azhari expressed his conviction that the Mujaddid had been condemned by certain scholars owing to their insufficient knowledge to understand the mystic terms used by the Shaikh or an erroneous conception of his thought. Muhammad Beg even defended Shaikh Ahmad in debates with the scholars of Hijaz which went a long way in clearing the mist of misunderstanding against the Mujaddid spread by al-Barzanji with the result that he had ultimately to write An-Nashirah al-Najirah lil-Firqah al-Fajirah in which he speaks of Muhammad Beg with scorn and contempt.

THE SCHOLARS OF SUB-CONTINENT

In India the Ma’arij ul-Wilayah by Shaikh ‘Abdullah Khesgi Qusuri (1043-1106/1633-1695) is a representative document showing the trend of thought among the sections not favourably inclined to the Mujaddid. Khesgi who was also known by the name of ‘Abdi, was a prolific writer, having several works to his credit, and a theologian allied to the Chishtiyah order. He was strongly inclined to the doctrine of Unity of Being. Khesgi’s teachers and mystic guides were mostly those who were opposed to the Mujaddid and had already signed the fatwa condemning him as a non-conformist. Some of them like Shaikh Ni’amat Ullah of Lahore and Qazi Nur ud-din, the Qazi of Qusur, seem to be unduly impressed by the Qadh-us-Zand whose author was then staying at Aurangabad. Khesgi wrote Ma’arij ul Wilayah in the same city in 1096/1688 by making use of another contemporary but apparently anonymous work entitled Kasir ul-Mukhalifin, which had been written to confute Shaikh Ahmad and his followers.

Khesgi’s Ma’arij ul-Wilayah evinces little scholarship and coherent thought as it would be seen by the few extracts of the book given here. Amongst the things considered objection able by him, one is that the Mujaddid did not consider it necessary to repeat the words of niyat or intention before offering a prayer. He writes:

“When he stood up for prayer, often he contemplated the niyat in his mind without repeating the formula, and claimed that it was the custom of the holy Prophet. He claimed that intention was a settling of purpose in the heart rather than something to be repeated by the tongue.”

How deeply has Khesgi studied the Maktubat and what sense of responsibility he exhibited in attributing ideas and statements to the Mujaddid can be seen from the following extract taken from the Ma’arij ul-Wilayah:

“Among the mystics of old those giving faith to the Unity of Being, such as Husain Mansur, Shaikh Muhyi-ud-din Ibn ‘Arabi and others, are regarded by him as agnostics and disbelievers. He has, on several occasions, denounced Muhyi-ud-din Ibn ‘Arabi as an apostate, attributed the beliefs of the M’utazilah to him, yet, he has also listed him amongst the elects of God in the Maktubat compiled in three volumes.”

Nowithstanding his criticism of the Mujaddid, Khesgi also pays tribute to him for his piety and spiritual attainments. He writes;

“(Hazrat Khwaja Baqi Billah) had given him leave to guide the seekers of truth whereby he imparted instruction in divinity to those who sought guidance from him; led the people to the way of God; instructed them to follow the commandments of the shari’ah; denounced those who did not live up to the demands of the law of Islam; and was pleased with those who walked on the path shown by the shari’ah.”

Khesgi appears, at several places in his writings, to be favourably inclined to the Mujaddid and even defends him by contradicting the constructions put upon the Mujaddid’s writings by his opponents. He reproduces a number of passages from the Maktubat held objectionable by the adversaries of the Mujaddid and then goes on to say:

“It is, however, not at all necessary that these passages , should be deemed to express the external (zahir) sense of the words ; if he intented, as already explained earlier, to convey some internal (batin) significance…… he should neither be blamed nor held up to reprobation.”

But the surrounding influence and the common talk he had swallowed soon make him to sing a different tune.

“Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that any pronouncement which can be construed as disrespectful to the holy Prophet can never be deemed to be free from blame or guilt.”

MUJADDID ALF THANI & AURANGZEB

One of the reasons for attaching undue importance to the Ma’arij ul-Wilayah and its publicity is that the book is supposed to preserve the text of a decree of Shaikh-ul-Islam sent to Hidayat Ullah, the Qadi of Aurangabad, on the direction of Aurangzeb. This decree, claimed to have been sealed by Shaikh- ul-Islam and issued on Shawwal 27, 1090/December 1, 1679, directed the qadi to curb the ideas apparently opposed to the views of ahl al-sunnah wal jama‘ah which were reported to be contained io the Maktubat, and to check their publication among the people. The decree has been given undue importance in certain modern dissertations as if it were a discovery of unusual significance which demolishes the whole edifice of the devotional attitude of Aurangzeb to the Mujaddid and his spiritual affiliation with the Mujaddid’s descendants. One may refer to a recent work, the Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi by a Jewish orientalist of Germany, Yohanan Friedmann, by way of example, who speaks of irrefutable historical authenticity of this document merely because (1) Ma‘arij al-Wilayah was written in Aurangabad, the city to which the decree is claimed to have been despatched, (2) references to the decree are found in two more contemporary works and (3) the non-existence of any writing by a partisan of the Mujaddid rejecting it as a forged document. The two additional contemporary works cited in support, which make a reference to the document are the Qadh-us-Zand and the An-Nashirah al-Najirah, which were written by Muhammad b. ‘Abdur- Rasul al-Barzanji. The first of two works, Qadh-us-Zand wa Fadah al-Rand fi Radd Jihslat Ahl al-Sirhind is an Arabic work completed on Rajab 13, 1093 (July 20, 1682), according to Friedmann. As Friedmann says the book was written to answer the istifta (questionnaire) sent by the ‘Qadi of India’ styled as qadi al-qudat bid-dayar al-hindiyah who was probably the same person referred to in the decree as Shaikh-ul-Islam. It is also claimed in the Qadh-us-Zand that the enquirer sent the questions for legal opinion upon the instruction of the Emperor. Were it so, Al-Barzanji would have been in direct contact with the person issuing the said decree, yet he fails to give its text although he reproduces all the other questions said to have been referred to the scholars of Mecca and Medina for juristic opinion. As-Sarim al-Hindi was also allegedly written by Shaikh Hasan Ujaimi in response to the istifta’ from Indian scholars but it spoke neither of the qadi al-qudat nor of any decree issued by him. This leads to one conclusion only and it is that either the istifta’ was not sent by the qadi of India but by somebody else in his name or that no text of the decree existed by that time which would have surely been sent along with the istifta’ as a weighty document in support of the alleged claims against the Mujaddid. The other book an-Nashirah al-Najirah lil-Firqah al-Fajirah was completed by al-Barzanji on Muharram 7, 1095/December 26, 1683; that is, two years after the first one was written to counter the pro-Mujaddid campaign launched in Hijaz. In this book, too, he just mentions the existence of the said decree. Incidently, this reduces Friedmann’s two contemporary authorities to one only since both were written by the same author. However, against this solitary witness supporting Khesgi, none of the historians of Aurangzeb’s time make any reference to the decree of the highest religious and judicial authority of the country although they report such trivial matters as funeral procession of music (rag) taken out by the musicians and prohibition of the t‘azia procession following an altercation between two parties at Burhanpur. The decree in question does not also find a place in the published and unpublished collections of Aurangzeb’s edicts, nor Friedmann has given any reason for this omission in the meticulously recorded annals of the time. On the other hand, Friedmann brushes aside the voluminous evidence of intimate relationship between Aurangzeb and the descendents of the Mujaddid just by a casual remark that the whole affair is a matter of controversy.

The so-called decree issued by the qadi of India begins with the words, “It has reached this august and holy location that some passages in the Maktubat of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi are apparently opposed to the views of ahl-al-sunnah wal-jama’at.” Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb was widely read and an accurate scholar who kept up his love of books to his dying day. His extensive correspondence proves his mastery of Arabic and Persian literature, both secular and Sacred. His interest in mystical discipline and association with the saintly men of God of his time are facts too well-known to every historian ofthe Mughal period. It would, therfore, be unreasonable to suppose that Aurangzeb was not conversant with the writings of the Mujaddid which had been deliberated upon by a large number of scholars of India and the holy cities ever since they had been penned by the Mujaddid, nor did he care, to go through the book adversely reported to him despite his deep interest in all matters pertaining to religion. It is equally fallacious to suppose that Aurangzeb would have given orders to curb its contents just on hearsay reports. In fact, had any such report been received by Aurangzeb, the religious aspect of the matter could never have escaped his notice for there was hardly any one more competent than he to bring in a verdict on the falseness or otherwise of the contents of the Maktubat. In any case the order would have never been issued on the basis of reports reaching ‘his august and holy location’; it would have rather been his own judgement to curb the publication of the Maktubat throughout his kingdom than in Aurangabad only. After a similar incident of local nature already referred to earlier, Aurangzeb had issued orders to all the subas prohibiting the manufacture and taking out of the Tazia (of Imam Husain) instead of issuing a prohibitory order for Burhanpur only.

Even if we assume that the decree in question is authentic, its importance has evidently been overestimated to strain the truth. The primary business of a king, even if he were religious- minded like Aurangzeb, would be to see that the people did not fall into polemical wranglings and mental dissention. Thus, if any order was in fact given by Aurangzeb fot curbing the publication of intricate mystical thought contained in the Maktubat among the illiterate masses of Aurangabad, which had then be come a centre of anti-Mujaddid activities, it would have been of the nature of instructions by many a mystic guide upholding the doctrine of Wahdat ul-wujud but asking their disciples not to go through the works of Ibn ‘Arabi. In other words, even if this decree were accepted as authentic,- it would not be helpful in drawing the inference that Aurangzeb disagreed with the Mujaddid’s forceful pleadings for enforcing the shari’ah as the law of the land. For this was Aurangzeb’s accepted policy and his life-long endeavour as unmistakably demonstrated by the deliberate steps taken by him to nullify the religious eclecticism of Akbar, and the reaffirmation of the distinct and unique character of Islamic thought and conduct — all these were completely in accord with the teachings of Mujaddid and his virtuous descendants who were in close contact with him.

Be that as it may, the popular opposition stirred up by rivals of the Mujaddid after his death, in order to condemn and contradict the mystical thoughts contained in the Maktubat, died away in the first quarter of the twelfth century A.H. although it was initially supported by a number of scholars and jurists, The traces of these wranglings can now be seen only on the pages of historical writings, some of which are still unpublished, destined to be preserved in the archives. On the other hand a number of cloisters of Mujaddidyah order were set up by that time from India to Turkistan. The scholars and mystics allied to the Mujaddid’s order propagated his thought and made the Arabic version of the Maktubat available to the Arab world. Shaikh Muhammad Mutad al-Makki Qazzani acquainted the Turk and Arab scholars with the mystical thought of the Mujaddid by writing the Zail ur-Rushahat. The Arabic translation of the Maktubat was made available under the title of Ad-Darr al- Maknunat al-Nafisi. Shaikh Muhammad Nur-ud-din Uzbeki wrote the ‘Atiyat al-Wuhhab al-Fasilah bayrta ul-Khata wa as- Sawab. The book was popularly received in the Arab countries and Turkey and it helped to clear the mist of misunderstanding about the Mujaddid. The response to these concerted efforts is adequately demonstrated by the complimentary remarks of a renowned scholar Shihab-ud-din Mahmud Alusi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270/1854) about Shaikh Ahmad in his Ruh-ul-Ma’ani in which he has profusely quoted from the Maktubat. By that time the flutter of opposition to Shaikh Ahmad among the circle of scholars had completely passed away.

“As for the foam, it passeth away as scum upon the banks, while as for that which is of use to mankind, it remaineth in the earth. Thus Allah coineth the similitude.” [Qur’an]

The scholars who had played a leading role in the dis- pargement of Shaikh Ahmad in Hijaz were all Kurdis. Shaikh Ibrahim al-Kaurani was a Kurd and so was Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rasul al-Barzanji who belonged to Shahrzor. Strange to say that Maulana Khalid, also of Shahrzor, was selected by God to propagate the mystic order of Shaikh Ahmad who succeeded in spreading it to Iraq, Syria, Kurdistan and Turkey in a way unprecedented in the history of mysticism.

Taken from: Saviours of Islamic Spirit

ILMUL GHAYB AND THE KUFR OF BARELWIS

The extreme deviance of the Barelwis and the crooked lie of their deceptive claim of being authentic adherents to the Hanafi Madh-hab and the generality (Jumhoor) of the Fuqaha, are exposed thoroughly by their attribution of detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of “everything that was and everything that will be” to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

This belief is summed up, in very clear terms, as follows by their arch-idol, Ahmad Raza Khan:

“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of everything from the first till the last. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun) has been shown to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. Great knowledge has been encompassed by the Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allah. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge.” (Inba al-Mustafa, p.486)

To illustrate better what is meant by the detailed knowledge of “every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness”, let us consider the example of a Nikah (wedding). According to this perverted Barelwi creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses the knowledge of every single one of the billions of Nikah that had ever taken place in the past, is currently taking place, and the billions more that are due to take place in the future.

Furthermore, according to this twisted creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses not only the knowledge of the general arrangements of each and every Nikah, but also every single paraphernalia attached to each Nikah, from the food items, the guests, the clothes worn by the guests, to every other minute detail connected to the Nikah, even the detailed knowledge of each and every leaf that falls in the vicinity of the Nikah and the detailed knowledge of each and every grain that is consumed during the Nikah.

The leafy and grainy detail of the knowledge attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is made clear in unambiguous terms:

From all of the above (i.e. all that has occurred and all that will occur – including obviously every single Nikah) not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet….It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail.”

Similar statements affirming detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of everything to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as opposed to a summary overview (ijmaali) of all significant events relevant to the creation, can be found in other books of Ahmad Raza Khan such as ad-Dawlat ul-Makkiyyah, Khaalis ul-I’tiqaad, al-Malfooz al-Shareef, and also in the books of other arch-idols of the Barelwis such Jaa al-Haq and Shane Habeebur Rahman of “Hakeem ul-Ummat” (The quack doctor of the Ummah), Ahmad Yaar Khan.

Now compare and contrast this belief, O Barelwi worshippers of Ahmad Raza Khan, against THE Fatwa of the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding a person who attributes to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of a single and solitary Nikah for which there is no apparent means for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to gain the knowledge of.

The Hanafi Mujtahid from the 5th Century, As-Sadr ush-Shaheed Husam ud-Deen, who was the senior teacher of numerous other pillars of the Hanafi Madh-hab, including the famous authors of al-Hidaayah and al-Muheet al-Ridawi, narrates the following ruling from his pious predecessors:

من تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله و رسوله لا يجوز لأنه نكاح لم يحضره الشهود، وحكى عن أبو القاسم الصفار أن هذا كفر محض لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله يعلم الغيب وهذا كفر

“Whoever marries a woman, taking Allah and his messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as witnesses – it is not permissible because witnesses are not present for the Nikah. It is related from Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar that this is Kufr Mahd (pure, unadulterated disbelief that expels a person from Islam) because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb) and this is Kufr.” [Al-Waaqi’aat, page 70 of the manuscript]

Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar as-Soofee (326H) was a Hanafi Mujtahid with only three links between himself and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh). This fatwa has been accepted and transmitted in every age by the Hanafi Fuqaha. The very same Fatwa or similar versions to it were accepted and quoted approvingly by the early Fatwa manuals which constituted the Hanafi Madh-hab such as al-Fataawa ul-Walwaalijiyyah (Vol. 5, pg. 422), Khulaasat ul-Fataawa (Vol. 4, pg. 385), al-Muheet ul-Burhaani (Vol. 7, pg. 407), al-Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyyah (Vol. 6, pg. 325), al-Fusool ul-Imaadiyyah, al-Multaqat (pg. 244), Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan (Vol. 2, pg. 517), and other authoritative texts.

Again, compare and contrast the statement, “this is pure Kufr because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb)”, with the Barelwi Aqeedah as exemplified by another one of their arch-idols, Muhammad Umar Icharwi, who commits the greatest act of Kufr and Gustakhi (demeaning Allah and his Rasool sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by making Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophethood wholly dependent on an attribute exclusive only to Allah Ta’aala: 

For the Prophethood to be valid it is necessary that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows ALL OF THE UNSEEN.” (Miqyase Hanafiyyat, p. 385) 

Let us now relate a few of the different versions of the same Fatwa related by all the authoritative Hanafi texts, in order to aid in acquiring a better understanding of the import of the Fatwa and the severity of the issue at hand.

The following version is found in the authoritative compendium of the Hanafi Madh-hab, Fataawa ul-Hindiyyah, which was the product of a collaborative effort involving hundreds of Ulama from around the Ummah who were commissioned by Hadhrat Alamghir Aurangzeb (rahmatullah alayh) to record those rulings upon which there is consensus or a general agreement amongst the Hanafi Fuqaha:

“A man marries a woman while witnesses are not present. He says: “I make Allah and His Rasul witness”, or he says, “I make Allah and His Angels witness”, he becomes Kaafir; but if he says: “I make the angel on the left shoulder and angel on the right shoulder witness”, he does not become a Kaafir.” [Vol. 2 pg. 288]

As in most of the other authoritative Fatwa manuals, no ikhtilaaf on this particular issue is cited, while in the very same chapters, multiple other beliefs or statements are often listed  regarding whose Kufr there exists an Ikhtilaaf. For example, regarding the anthropomorphic statement, “Allah is looking from the throne“, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah states that this is Kufr (with no attention paid to the intention of the utterer) “according to the majority” i.e. a minority refrained from doing Takfeer for this crime.

The same version of the Fatwa narrated by Fataawa al-Hindiyyah is found in earlier compilations such as Khulaasat ul-Fataawa, al-Fusool ul-Imdaadiyyah, Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyah and al-Muheet ul-Burhaani. 

Explaining why the one who invokes the two writing angels (Kiraaman Kaatibeen) as witnesses does not become a Kaafir, as opposed to the one who attributes the knowledge of the very same Nikah to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the author of al-Muheet narrates from an earlier Fataawa compilation:

He does not become Kaafir because those two (i.e. the writing angels in the right and left shoulders) do know that (i.e. the Nikah), since they are not absent from him (i.e. the man making the statement).” [Vol. 7, pg. 407]

This succinctly answers the moronic question posed by Bidatis and Mushriks today, “If it’s not Kufr to ascribe such knowledge to the two writing angels, how could it be Kufr to ascribe it to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)???”

The Hanafi authority of the 6th century, Qaadhi Khaan, while narrating this Fatwa, added:

He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) didn’t have knowledge of the unseen while alive, so how would he after his death?” [Vol. 2, pg. 517]

The terrible crime of the apostate which caused his instantaneous exit from Islam, is mentioned in absolutely unambiguous terms by Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar, in one of numerous transmissions of his Fatwa:

“…since he believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows this Nikah…”

O Barelwi, if the authentic belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has detailed knowledge, leaf and grain, of EVERYTHING that was and that shall be (maa kaana wa maa yakoon), then on what grounds did all these Fuqaha attribute Kufr to the man who believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has knowledge of just the one Nikah?

Isn’t this one Nikah automatically and by default included in the“detailed knowledge of everything that was and everything that will be” which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) supposedly has according to your religion?

Were the Fuqaha all guilty of Haraam Ghuloo’ (extremism) and Gustakhi – demeaning Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) –  by denying for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of billions and billions of Nikah ceremonies?

Or is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable degree of Ghuloo’ and Gustakhi – of the degree of Kufr – by fabricating upon Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge which can be termed  “Ilmun Laa Yanfa’” (knowledge which serves no beneficial purpose) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would repeatedly and earnestly seek refuge?

Is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable level of Gustakhi by mutilating beyond recognition many of the supreme and sublime attributes of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), such as the noble quality of “Ummi” – defined as “unlettered” by the consensus of the Fuqaha whom you fraudulently claim to follow – which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) proudly proclaimed for himself and his (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)?

Is it not you who commit the dastardly Gustakhi crime of implying deficiency in Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by propounding the perverted idea that the consensus of the Fuqaha on the definition of Ummi (unlettered), and the consensus of the Fuqaha on negating for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge that isIlmun Laa Yanfa’ (such as billions of Nikah ceremonies) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself repeatedly sought refuge, results in a diminishing of the perfections of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Na’oozubillah!?

Did the Salafi arch-idol, Ibn Abdul Wahhab, perform a spectacular and unprecedented miracle (istidraaj) by time-travelling back to the third century and injecting “wahhabism” into the books of all the Hanafi Fuqaha whose books are replete with Fatwas such as the above – Fatwas which condemn unequivocally numerous beliefs and acts that have become the Sha-aair (salient identifying features) of the Barelwis today, such as attributing knowledge of the Hour to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and a chronic addiction to building and plastering over graves – which when cited faithfully by the Ulama-e-Haqq tend to elicit violently allergic reactions and irrational allegations of “wahhabi influence”?

We interject here to point out that while we accept the Hanafi ruling that this particular aspect of Barelwi creed is Kufr, we refrain from doing Takfeer on the Barelwis in general, just as we refrain from doing Takfeer of the Salafis despite the very same Hanafi texts cited above declaring as Kaafir the one who attributes a place or direction to Allah Ta’aala as the Salafis do. We shall dilate on this point in the complete article, to be published in future, which will contain, insha-Allah, a demolition of the Ghutha (trash) arguments employed by the Barelwi arch-idols to befool their followers.

For now, we release this much information, which we believe to be sufficient for most sincere seekers of truth, to warn the Barelwi masses of the potentially eternal doom that awaits them – the status of a Kaafir according to the Jumhoor Fuqaha of the Hanafi Madh-hab – should they persist in clinging onto their deviant religion.

Source: https://reliablefatwas.com/ilmul-ghayb-and-the-kufr-of-barelwis/

MAUSOLEUMS & MAZAARS – MONUMENTS OF SHIRK AND KUFR

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

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

MAZAARS – MONUMENTS OF SHIRK AND KUFR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANOTHER BASELESS ARGUMENT OF ANOTHER GRAVE-WORSHIPPER

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

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

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

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

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

Presenting the tafseer of this aayat, Baidhaawi says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tafseer Qurtubi continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In another hadith Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Raza Academy alleges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We say to the Qabar Pujari jamaat:

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

ALLAH TA’ALA HAS CURSED THE YAHOOD AND NASARA (BECAUSE) THEY MADE THE GRAVES OF THEIR AMBIYA PLACES OF WORSHIP (i.e. MAUSOLEA AS IS THE PRACTICE OF THE QABAR PUJARI SECT).