Category Archives: Uncategorized

“786” – Does it stand for ‘Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem’??  

786 is the numerical representation of “Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem” has no religious or Islaamic significance.

The numerals 786 or any other numerals in no way represent ‘Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem’ or other Surahs of the Noble Qur’ân and is not the Sunnah either. 


Allaah say in Qur’ân:

“Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’ân in order that you may understand” [Qur’an12:2].

We are instructed to recite the Qur’an Majeed, as can be seen from the following verses:

“And (it is) a Qur’ân which We have divided (into parts), in order that you might recite it to men at intervals. And We have revealed it by stages. (in 23 years).” [Qur’an 17:106];

“….So RECITE as much of the Qur’ân as may be easy (for you),…” [Qur’an 73:20].

Now would one recite the Qur’an if it is reduced to numbers? As an example, we shall reduce the Surah Fatihah to numerical figures for the benefit of the reader.

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem =  787

Al-hamdulillaahi rabbil Aalameen = 632

Ar-Rahmaan-ur-Raheem = 618

Maaliki yawm-midhdeen = 242

Eeyya ka Na’ bu-du Wa Eeyya ka nasta’een = 836

Ih’diynas-sira thalmustaqeem

………..and in NO WAY sacred. It is a conspiracy against the Holy Book of Allaah.

This old game of numbers was practised by the ancient Egyptians, as did many other civilizations. Islaam came to ELIMINATE ALL such superstitions, mysteries and numerological mumbo-jumbo. However, certain Muslims are still enslaved to the numbers game, and think that 786 represents BISMILLAAHIR RAHMAA NIR RAHEEM.

The innovation of writing ‘786’ replacing ‘Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem’ has been adopted for a long time and the majority of the Ummah is still indulged in it inadvertently. Apart from the common folk, the scholars also heed no attention towards it and to avoid disrespect to the Holy Words they use it in their letters and documents. They adopt it as ‘correct’ and ‘better’ way to invite Allaah’s blessings and have also started replacing the Holy Words by this number on their houses, offices, buildings, etc. Unfortunately, this tendency is gradually gaining momentum. But, do we see this number instead of the Holy Words in the Holy Qur’ân? Or, can we write it there as well? can we remove ‘Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem’ from the top of Surah al-Fatihah and replace it with the number 786? Obviously not. 

If we study the Qur’ân, we see it carries the holy words in a letter from Prophet Solomon (pbuh) to the Queen of Sheeba – Bilqis – who was an infidel at that time. Even Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in his letters to different heads of states and governments, used the holy words at the top. Therefore, whosoever uses 786 with the intention to obtain Allaah’s blessings, is a misguided person and any attempt to justify it, is ignorance.

More astonishing is the fact that ‘786’ is an aggregation of the numbers of Hindu ‘Lord Hari Krishna’.

H(a)ri Kr(i)shna
h-5, r-200, r-10, k-20, r-200, sh-300, n-50, a-1 = Aggregate of 786, Thus, the aggregate number of these letters (Hari Krishna) equals 786. This is also the case of ‘Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem’. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid using this number to avoid the danger of being indulging in infidelity.

Islaam’s foundation is laid on the belief in Tawheed (oneness of God). If we associate anyone with Allaah’s exalted names orally or practically, we would be committing infidelity which is an unpardonable sin. The Qur’ân warns us, one who finds a rival against Allaah, Allaah will never allow him to enter paradise, and his abode is the hell. The letters by the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) to non-Muslim Kings and chiefs bear the holy words ‘Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem’. This was also the case of his noble companions. Did the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and his companions respect the Holy Words less than we do? Was the verse, ‘Today I completed your religion for you’, revealed to the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) or to the so called scholars of our age who are all bent to amend the Divine principles.

Now, when it became known that ‘786’ is written in place of Hindu, ‘Lord Krishna’, and has no significance in the Holy Qur’ân and Sunnah, it is obviously an innovation and goes against the Divine doctrine of ‘Obey Allaah and His Prophet’.

Similarly, some Muslims replace Allaah’s name by the number ’66’ and the Prophet’s name by ’92’. But if one ask, the number ‘420’ is used against somebody’s name and he is called ‘420’. Can he bear such an insult?

Calling someone by a nick name is also a sin. Allaah Ta’ala says, ‘Don’t call one another by nick names’. If Allaah prohibits the use of nicknames for fellow human beings, how can He allow the use of such insulting replacement number for Himself and His Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

‘Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem’s great significance in the Qur’ân and Muslims are ordered to begin any work but in the names of Allaah, not in the number of ‘786’ or any other substitution.


The tenth of Muharram is observed by many as the day of Shahaadat-e-Husain (radhiyallahu anhu).

Special gatherings are held wherein the heart-rending incident of the martyrdom of Sayyidina Husain (Radhiyallahu Anhu) is mentioned. This aspect is discussed in this article.

To lay down one’s life for the cause of Deen is the ultimate sacrifice. Hence being the ultimate sacrifice, martyrdom naturally has the highest honour as well. Allaah Ta’ala describes the martyrs as “living” in the verse: 

“And say not to those who have been slain in the Path of Allah that they are dead. Nay, they are alive and receive sustenance by their Master.” [Qur’an 3:169]

Martyrdom is nothing strange or uncommon to Muslims. The flourishing garden of Islaam has been watered by the blood of the martyrs from the very early days of Islaam. Among those great sons of Islaam, who crowned their life-long efforts for the sake of Deen by finally laying down their lives was Hussain ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the noble grandson of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). His martyrdom was indeed heart-rending in the extreme.


It was on the tenth of Muharram that Husain ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu) was mercilessly martyred. Before his very eyes scores of his immediate family also tasted from the cup of martyrdom. Finally he joined them. The various details of this tragic incident are too
gruesome to comprehend. One could cry tears of blood.

However, the pages of our history are filled with the blood of the martyrs. How is it that we have remembered the tenth of Muharram but are totally unaware of the heart-rending martyrdom of many other great personalities of Islaam. Did we know that on the first of Muharram the second Caliph of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was also mercilessly martyred.

UMAR FAROOQ (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

While leading the Fajr Salaah, Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed six times by a fire-worshipper. He fell to the ground unable to continue with the Salaah. Abdur Rahman bin Auf (radhiyallahu anhu) then lead the Salaah and completed it. We also feel the grief of that fateful day. However we have never heard of anybody observing the day of Shahadat-e-Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu).

UTHMAN GHANI (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

Likewise the third Caliph of Islaam, the son in-law of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam); Uthman (radhiyallahu Anhu) was also brutally martyred. When the enemy besieged his house, for days he was unable to even get any water from the well which he had purchased and gifted to everybody to use at liberty. On Friday the eighteenth of Zil Hijjah, the enemy finally broke into his home. When Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) was at that time reciting the Holy Qur’ân. However no mercy was shown to him and his blood was spilt onto the pages of the Book of Allaah. He also joined his predecessors in Jannah. This incident can also make one shed tears of blood. But we have never heard of anybody observing the day of Shahadat-e-Uthman.

HAMZA (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also witnessed some heart-rending martyrdoms. His beloved uncle, Hamza (radhiyallahu anhu) was martyred in the battle of Uhud. After he was martyred, his body was defiled and severely mutilated. His ears and nose were cut off. The body of the beloved uncle of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was then ripped open and his liver removed. This was then taken away to be chewed. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was greatly disturbed and grieved over this. So great was his grief that when the killer of Hamza (radhiyallahu anhu) accepted Islaam, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) requested him not to come in front of him as this would remind him of his uncle and bring back the grief. However, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not observe any day as the day of Shahadat-e-Hamza.


The battle of Bir Ma’oona is yet another incident of the great Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum) laying down their lives for the cause of Deen. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was requested to send some of his companions to teach the people of Najd. Upon this request Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent seventy people who were all Huffaaz and qurra (plural of Qari). On the way they were attacked and almost all were martyred. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was once again greatly grieved and for one month in the Fajr Salaah cursed these people who had deceived and martyred his beloved companions so mercilessly. Here also Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) observed no day as the day of their martyrdom.


Indeed our hearts bleed when we recount the incident of the Martyrdom of Husain (radhiyallahu anhu). We also experience the grief when we recount the Martyrdoms of Umar, Uthman and Hamza (radhiyallahu anhum) Likewise we are greatly pained when we read or hear of the martyrs of Bir Ma’ oona; Uhud; Badr; Jamal, Siffeen and all the other battles. Nevertheless, despite our grief, we will refrain from all things alien to the Shariah. Let us consider that if we observe the day of the martyrdom of Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) then what about the rest? In that case almost every day of the year would be spent mourning.


It is therefore absolutely clear that the tenth of Muharram is not a day to observe as the martyrdom of Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). It’s significance lies solely in what has been explained in the Ahaadeeth. Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) came to Madinah and found the Jews fasted on that day of Aashooraa. Hence he enquired of them, ‘What is the significance of this day on which you fast?’ They replied: ‘This is a great day. On this day Allah Ta’ala saved Moosa (Alayhis salaam) and his people  and drowned Firoun and his nation. Thus Moosa (Alayhis salaam) fasted on this day as a token of thanksgiving, therefore we also fast on this day.’ Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) fasted on this day and ordered his companions to do the same. (Sahih Muslim vol. 1


It is therefore clear that the day of Ashura is not a day of mourning. Indeed, our hearts bleed when we recall the martyrdom of Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). It also bleeds when we hear of the martyrdom of the other great personalities of Islaam. However we have not been taught to perpetually mourn. Yes. we have been taught to take a lesson from the lives of the martyrs. Just as these great personalities selflessly sacrificed their lives for the up-liftment of Deen, likewise we should also be prepared to make sacrifices for the protection and spreading of the Deen.

Abu Layth – A U.K. Devil Incarnate


A man, Abu Layth in the U.K., posing as a Maaliki, is propagating many weird views of kufr. Among his deviances are the following:

1) Tattooing the body is halaal.

2) Wearing earrings is halaal for men.

3) Masturbation is halaal.

4) He rejects the coming of Imaam Mahdi (Alayhis salaam).

5) He denies the Khurooj of Dajjaal.

6) He denies the coming of Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam).

7) He criticizes Imaam Bukhaari (Rahmatullah alayh).

8) He calls Bukhaari Shareef fairy tales.

Besides these, he has many other absolutely shaitaani ideas and teachings.

What is the status of this man who is supposedly an Aalim?

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Shaitaan too was a great Aalim. Rasulullah’s predictions have to materialize. The appearances of human devils (Shayaateenul ins) as mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has to occur. The lout you have mentioned is one such devil in human form. Perhaps he is the Devil Incarnate, hence he disgorges the satanic effluvium listed by you.

It should be obvious to all Muslims that this villain is not a Muslim. He is a Munaafiq  masquerading as a Muslim. Shaitaan has innumerable such agents prowling around the world. Their profession is to deviate Muslims and lead them to the path of Jahannam. Only those destined to be the inmates of Jahannam will follow such a shaitaani crank as the hoodlum pointed out by you.

Complicit in the kufr and fisq propagated by this human devil are the Ulama at your end. Those who maintain silence whilst the Rubbish propagates his rubbish, are also shayaateen. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) branded them ‘Dumb Devils’.

Whilst the appearances of these minor Dajjaals is imperative and a cause of grief for us, they are among the Signs of Qiyaamah and have to be accepted. There is nothing surprising in their onslaught on the Deen. This type of evil and fitnah is incremental as we approach Qiyaamah.

Fadha’il-e-A’maal – A Response to the Allegation about Kashf & Ilhaam

Some people are alleging that there are baseless stories in the kitaab, Fazaail-e-A’maal, which harm the Aqeedah (Belief) of Muslims. A number of examples of allegedly baseless stories are given to back up the claim of baseless stories. The claimant alleges as follows: “Moulana Zakariyah mentions in Fazaail-e-Hajj, ‘Once one of the Abdaal met Khidr and inquired from him whether he had met anyone among the saints whom he considered higher in rank than himself. To this he replied, “yes, I have. I was present once in the Masjid in Medina, where I saw Hazrat Shaikh Abdur Razzak directing Hadeeth to his students. On one side was a young man sitting with his head bent on his knees. I went to him and addressed him thus, ‘do you not see the gathering listening to the words of Rasoolullah. Why do you not join them?’ Without lifting up head or turning in my direction the youth answered: “Over there you see those who listen to the Hadeeth from the mouth of Abdur-Razzak (the slave of the sustainer), while over here you see him who listens to Hadeeth directly  from Ar-Razzak (Allah).” Khidr said to him, “If what you say is true then you should be able to tell me who I am?” He lifted up his head and said, ‘If my intuition does not fail me then you are Khidr.’ Hazrat Khidr said, “From that I realized that among the saints of Allah there are such who are so exalted in rank that I cannot recognize them.” The objector presented the following comment on this episode: “This Deviant Story Promotes that the false belief that someone can receive knowledge directly from Allah without the mediation of the Messenger (sallallahu alae wassallam) and to receive knowledge from Allah is something specific for the Messengers. This story make this so-called Abdaal equal to Prophet Moosa (alaihis-salam) and our Messenger (sallaallahu Muhammad alaihe wasallam) who spoke directly to Allah. (We have reproduced the allegation and comment of the jaahil Salafi verbatim together with the many errors  –The Majlis)

ANSWER (by Mujlisul Ulama):

Hadhrat Maulana Zakariyya Saheb (rahmatullah alayh) was an outstanding Aalim and Wali. He spent his entire life teaching Hadith. He was not ignorant like these juhhaal Salafis who submit the Qur’aan and Hadith to their whimsical fancies and fabricate interpretations of their nafs. The kitaab, Fazaail-e-A’maal is a very beneficial kitaab. It is reliable.

The criticism of the deviant Salafis is spurious and devoid of substance. It is a sheer waste of time to respond to all the drivel they have gorged out.

We shall by way of sample just deal with one stupid criticism of the Salafis, which we have reproduced from the list of allegations you have sent. There is nothing in conflict with the Shariah in the episode of the Abdaal and Hadhrat Khidr (alayhis salaam). The jaahil Salafi presenting his objection and criticism states: “In this Deviant Story, the knowledge of the conditions of Paradise and Hell-Fire and the knowledge of future events is claimed for the so-called ‘man of Kashf’”

There is no such claim made in the story. Kashf and Ilhaam are realities. But the barren Salafis are spiritually blind, hence they are like the kuffaar atheists who deny the transcendental realities of the spiritual realms, and believe in only the existence of stone and rock because their brains are not only fossilized, but totally deranged by the touch of shaitaan. The story does not teach that the Wali has knowledge of the unseen. It is simply a case of Allah Ta’ala having revealed some aspects of the Unseen realm by way of kashf/ilhaam. The claim of Wahi has not been made. Kashf/Ilhaam! is a reality experienced by non-Ambiya.

In the authentic Hadith it is reported that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) while delivering the Jumu’ah Khutbah in Madina, gained knowledge of the condition of the army thousands of miles away about to move into a trap/ ambush, hence during the course of the Khutbah, to the surprise of the audience, he exclaimed: ‘O Saariyah! The mountain! The mountain!.” Now how did Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) gain this awareness when he was thousands of miles away: And, how did his voice reach Hadhrat Saariyah (radhiyallahu anhu) instantaneously? When the army returned to Madinah, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was informed that his command was heard in the battlefield, and Hadhrat Saariyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered the army to change position and head for the protection of the mountain as commanded from Madinah by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).

Shall it now be said that Allah’s Knowledge of the Unseen (Ghaib) has been conferred to Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), and all those who narrate this Hadith and belief in its correctness are believing in baatil?

A man who had cast lustful glances at a woman came into the gathering of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). When Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) looked at the man, he saw zina dripping from his eyes. In order not to embarrass the man, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) in general terms admonished people who commit zina of the eyes then come to his gathering. Did Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) receive Wahi to know of the misdeed of the man? What was the medium for his awareness? How did he know?
There are countless thousands of episodes of the kashf and ilhaam of the Sahaabah and Auliya. But stupid, spiritually barren deviate Salafis are too blind to understand this reality. Stating the kashf/ ilhaam of the pious, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Beware of the firaasat of the Mu’min, for verily he looks with the Noor of Allah.”

Salafis are stupid just like the kuffaar materialists who deny the realities of the spiritual realm. Therefore, the best answer for them is to say as the Qur’aan Majeed commands:

“And when they (the Mu’mineen) hear laghw (nonsense), they say: ‘For us are our deeds and for you are your deeds. Salaam on you, we do not follow the jaahileen.”

‘Eed Hand-Shaking & Hugging — Not Ordained by the Sharee’ah

This is the translation of an extract taken from the Urdu Kitaab titled “’Eedain Mein Mubaarakbaadi Kaa Masnoon Tareeqah” written by Maulana Khaalid Khaan Qaasmi

A new way which people have adopted for wishing one another on the day of ‘Eed is by hand-shaking & hugging. This has no basis in the Sharee’ah of Islaam. As this is not proven from any statement, deed or narration of Nabee (Sallallaahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam), neither from any Sahaabi (radhiyallaahu ‘anhum) and nor from any Imaam & Mujtahid (rahmatullaahi ‘alayhim), so this prevailing act of hand-shaking & hugging on the occasion of ‘Eed is nothing other than a bid’ah which is an addition in Deen & a baseless custom. And the statement of some people claiming it to be better & good is nothing except shaytaani deception & trickery. Because how can any Believer claim any such practise which is innovated in opposition to ALLAAH Ta’aalaa, His Sharee’ah & His Nabee (Sallallaahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) to be better & good..? So there is a dire need to abstain & be cautious against such innovations.

Now here just try to understand the reason behind the above prohibition. In fact hand-shaking & hugging is a beautiful way & a good practise which is recommended by the Sharee’ah too. But any deed which is enacted by the Pristine Sharee’ah by specifying the situation & condition for it, than that deed has to be carried out only under that specified situation & condition, only then will it be a means of obtaining the Pleasure of ALLAAH Ta’aalaa. Otherwise if its carried out under different situation & condition other than those specified by the Sharee’ah then the same deed becomes a means of transgression & punishment from ALLAAH Ta’aalaa.

As you have understood the above principle. Let it be known that the Pristine Sharee’ah has ordained hand-shaking at the time of meeting & separation and hugging at the time of returning from journey. So these two acts if done on the specified occasions, only then will it be deemed to be a Sunnah act and a means of virtue & reward. And if done on other then the specified occasion, which usually people do at the time of two ‘Eeds is that the father, sons, brothers, relatives, neighbours & friends everyone arrive collectively from their homes at the ‘Eedgah and immediately after completing the ‘Eed Salaah start shaking hands with one another. Although just sometime back they have collectively arrived from their homes chatting with one another & neither is this their first meet nor is it a time for their separation yet they initiate the act of hand-shaking & hugging assuming it to be a deed (recommended) at the occasion of ‘Eed, while the Sharee’ah has not ordained the acts of hand-shaking & hugging on these occasions. So this act is contrary to the Sharee’ah, which is a bid’ah (a reprehensible innovation) & an addition in Deen. There is a dire need to abstain from all such acts.

Translated by Brother ‘Abd al-Raheem

The Spiritual Feature of Thabah (Slaughtering)

By Mujlisul Ulama

The Thabah (Slaughtering) of animals is not without the dimension of Divine Love. Expounding this concept of love of which almost all people are ignorant, Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayh) wrote in his Kitaab, Hujjatul Islam:

“In Thabah the sacrifice of life is made by the animal, and the sacrifice is for the sake of Mahboob Asli (The True Beloved). The one who is the medium of the sacrifice (the slaughterer) executes it for the sake of Allah Ta’ala, The True Beloved. A man sacrifices an animal which he has reared and cared for. He does so solely for the sake of Allah Ta’ala. His act of sacrifice is not meaningless.

Allah Ta’ala is the Mahboob (Beloved) of all mankind as well as the Mahboob of animals. Allah’s Love for mankind and animal kind is Asli (true and original). Divine Love is not external nor transitory. Man’s love for Allah is dependent on His Love for man. Thus, besides Allah Ta’ala no one else can be a claimant to such Love.

In most aspects man and animal resemble one another. This striking resemblance demands that the animal’s life be sacrificed with Muhabbat (Love), and such a sacrifice is possible and permissible only for the Sake of Allah Ta’ala.

Allaamah Sha’raani (rahmatullah  alayh) narrating from his Shaikh, Hadhrat Ali Al-Khawwaas (rahmatullah alayh) said that animals possess perfect Ma’rifat of Allah Ta’ala. However, only a Wali who has attained the loftiest spiritual stage is able to recognize this reality.

Love is embedded in the heart of every animal. Every animal has love for Allah Ta’ala. And, why will it not have such love when it is aware of its Creator?”

The above is a brief extract from Hujjatul Islam, a Kitaab which opens the mind, heart and soul to understand the spiritual mysteries inherent in the Islamic system of Thabah. Brutally taking the lives of animals in the way in which the savagery is perpetrated in the halaalized killing facilities is intolerable in Islam. The sin of such brutality qualifies its perpetrators for upside down hanging in the Blazing Furnaces of Jahannum. Instead of taking the lives of the animals for the Sake of Allah Ta’ala and in the manner commanded by Allah Ta’ala, the halaalizers of carrion are torturing these Makhluqaat of Allah Ta’ala in brutal kuffaar style. Moral, spiritual and physical destruction is the consequence of devouring the haraam ‘halaalized’ carrion.

Maulana Taariq Jameel’s Bayaans – A Cause for Concern

By Mufti Emraan Vawda

Note 1: This article uses of hyperlinks. To make use of these one is required to be connected to the internet. Click / tap on the texts highlighted in blue (or brown), which will then take one to the related document or audio clip. This may take time depending on the speed of the connection.

Note 2: My apologies to the reader. I only had a few hours to spare in writing this brief article. Had there been more time, much more material on the topic could have been presented. Also, few people nowadays have time to read lengthy articles

This article attempts to answer a basic question:

Is it safe for the layperson to listen to the bayaans of Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb?

By ‘safe’ is intended Deeni safety.

In probing this question, the following six points will be concisely considered:

A. Al Kalimatul Haadi

In September 2010 Mufti Muhammad Eesa Khan Saheb published a book entitled

الكلمة الهادي الي سواء السبيل في جواب من لبس الحق بالاباطيل

(The guiding word toward the straight path, in reply to the one who conflated the truth with many falsehoods).

The book is in Urdu and about 360 pages. In this book Mufti Eesa Saheb discussed, in detail, many errors of Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb of Pakistan, the famous Tablighi orator. His problematic statements were transcribed and then refuted.

Upon completion, the book was presented to certain senior Ulama of Pakistan for their comments. The following Ulama endorsed the book.

1. Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Safdar Saheb (1914-2009) was a world famous expert on deviant sects. He spent his entire life writing extensively and produced numerous works in almost every field. He exposed and in detail refuted the works of the deviant sects. Upon hearing some of the objectionable statements made by Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb, he commented:

He [Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb] is an agent of the deviant sects.

2. Professor Ghulaam Rasool Adeem Saheb.

3. Maulana Fadhl Muhammad Yusufzai Saheb, the Ustaad of Hadith at Jamiah Islamiyah, Binnori Town, Karachi. Many eminent South African Ulama are graduates of this world famous Darul Uloom.

Maulana confirmed that definitely some of Maulana Taariq Jameel’s statements deserved to be taken to task.

4. Maulana Husain Shah Saheb of Balochistan. At some stage Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb apparently retracted some of his previous statements. Commenting on such apparent retraction, Maulana Husain Shah Saheb writes:

“I carefully studied [Maulana] Taariq Jameel’s all-inclusive retraction and his incorrect defensive interpretations. I tried to weigh them against his original errors. It appears as if [Maulana] Taariq Jameel has not made any retraction at all, since he is not yet convinced that his lessons were satiated with incorrect beliefs.”

5. Professor Qadi Muhammad Taahir Ali Al-haashimi of Hazara.

6. Mufti Abdul Waahid Saheb. Darul Iftaa, Jamiah Madaniyah, Lahore.

7. Maulana Muhammad Sardar Saheb. Darul Uloom Arabiyyah, Hangu. Pakistan.

8. Maulana Muhibbun Nabi Saheb. Darul Uloom Madaniyyah. Lahore.

9. Maulana Saajid Husain Muaawiyah Saheb, Abbottabad.

10. Maulana Muhammad Siddiq Saheb. Principal Jamiah Rashidiyyah. Rawalpindi.

11. Qaari Fath Muhammad Saheb. Sargodha.

12. Maulana Muhammad Sulayman Saheb. Rawalpindi.

13. Maulana Sayyid Abdul Maalik Shah Saheb. Gujranwala.

14. Mufti Zafr Iqbal Saheb. Principal Madrasah Miftaahul Uloom. Bhakkar. Pakistan.

15. Maulana Muhamad Nawaz Balooch Saheb. Gujranwala.

[One of the reasons for recording these names is to dispel the possible notion that the concern around Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb’s statements is an isolated or obscure view.]

Some of the ustaads and Muftis from Jamiah Ashrafiyyah, Lahore, called for Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb. When he appeared before them, they presented him with a list of his unacceptable statements. Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb verbally accepted his error and retracted from these statements. In order to verify this, Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb was requested to sign a document confirming the same. He refused.

In August 2008 Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb wrote:

“For some time some pamphlets have been distributed concerning me. A booklet has also been printed. I have only one response to all of this.  سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم [Aayah meaning: Glory be to Allah, this is a grave false-accusation]. Alhamdulillah I am bound by the school and pattern of the Ulama e Deoband, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama-ah. I am a student of this school, and I am firm on its belief system.”

This was shortly after his apparent retraction at Jamiah Ashrafiyyah, Lahore. It begs the question: If he admitted that he was in error, what does he mean by saying that this is a grave false-accusation? One cannot have it both ways: admitting and denying the charge. It places in question whether there was a genuine retraction.

Mufti Muhammad Eesa Khan then presented Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb a copy of the statements of concern in order to seek clarity. He offered Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb the opportunity to clarify his statements. Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb ignored the offer.

Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb followed it up with a written statement saying:

“If in my lectures different impressions are to be found, it is due to my error in expressing myself, not an error in my beliefs.”

However one will note in respect of these contentious statements that Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb expresses himself quiet clearly. It is not simply a matter of ambiguous expressions.

Mufti Muhammad Eesa Khan then sent Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb a message via Hajee Muhammad Naeem, inviting him to Gujranwala in order to discuss the statements. Hajee saheb conveyed the reply that Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb is not prepared to come to Gujranwala.

Mufti Muhammad Eesa Khan thereafter felt that he had exhausted the avenues of giving Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb an opportunity of redeeming or explaining himself. He thus felt the need to write a refutation of these statements and to publish the same.

The book is rather lengthy, and it is not practical to condense the book in a few lines. Hence those who are able to comprehend Urdu are urged to first read the book before passing comment on this sensitive issue. [Click link here for book].

Even if one does not agree with the entire contents of the book, this much is evident that Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb has made many contentious, problematic and controversial statements. Some of these are bound to put the layperson into serious doubt in respect of certain fundamental issues of Deen.

If we revert to the core question this article seeks to answer, namely: Is it safe for the layperson to listen to the bayaans of Maulana Taariq Jameel?, a careful study of the book will produce a clear answer in the negative.

B. Maulana Taariq Jameel’s praise for Maududi

Abul A’la Maududi (1903 – 1979) was a religious scholar who founded the Jamaat-i-Islami in 1941. On the surface his writings were inspirational and he managed to gain a large following. However, surreptitiously hidden within his writings were poisonous teachings which eat away at the fundamentals of Islam. His writings display flagrant disrespect towards the Ambiya (alayhis salaam) and Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum). The Deobandi Ulama were at the forefront of exposing the dangers of his teachings and movement.

Examples of such criticism of Maududi are the following: One, Two, Three and Four. (link two to four will be added later)

In this clip Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb has unreserved and immense praise for Maududi. 

It effectively pours water on all the efforts the Deobandi Ulama have made in combatting this scourge.

The issue is not about which group one belongs to – the Deobandi school or Jamaat-i-Islami. The more pressing issue is the danger to one’s Imaan that lurks below the apparent appeal of Maududi’s teachings.

Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb has expressed similar sentiments of praise regarding the Shia.

Maulana Taariq Jameel’s ardent followers defend his stance by saying that he is not ignorant, and fully understands that Maudidiasm and Shiasm are wrong. He only makes such statements in order to win over the members of these sects. They hasted to point out that as a result of him expressing such sentiments he was invited to address the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Shia. Such an invitation was never previously extended to any Deobandi Aalim.

Without interrogating the veracity of these claims, let us for a moment generously assume that they are true in conceding that he is two-faced.

Such a viewpoint is very selfish and narrow minded. It only takes aim from a certain vantage point. Maybe Maulana and his close followers are blessed to know the truth. But what about the many thousands of lost souls out there in the real world who are prepared to grab onto any “?-ism” that catches their fancy?

From the perspective of the ignorant layman who is fresh and green, if he had to hear such praises, according to his mind-set the impression created is that there is nothing objectionable about Jamaat-i-Islami or Shiasm. Hence such a person will, without reservations, become comfortable with the teachings of Maududi and the Shia under the confidence that it has the imprimatur sanction of an internationally popular Islamic orator who draws unmatched crowds. In this manner the layperson will be putting his/her Deen in danger.

The second danger of such doublespeak is that the Shia and Jamaat-i-Islami leadership, whether sincerely or out of mischief, could announce that there cannot be anything seriously wrong with Shiasm or Jamaat-i-Islami since a famous person like Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb has praised them.

Here in South Africa, Shia proselytists have already intimated that if Shiasm was as bad as the others make it sound, a person like Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb would never have praised them. They thus propose that shiasm is not as evil as the “extremists” would want the public to believe, and that Shiasm should therefore be accommodated within the banner of Islam.

In such situations the Ulama, whose duty it is to defend the faith of the Muslims, have no option but to publicly declare that persons such as Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb cannot be relied upon. In response thereto, his ardent followers then react by labelling these Ulama “extremists”. The enemies of Islam thereafter sit back and laugh at the ensuing circus.

The cause of all this confusion and tension is the initial doublespeak. Remove it and such situations do not arise.

Sayyiduna Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was too noble to deceive (others), and too smart to be deceived.”

C. Maulana Taariq Jameel’s introducing the aspect of the “weakness” of Allah Ta’aala.

Clips One and Two deal with the same topic. It appears that Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb was combatting the Barelvi position whereby some of their leaders say that the Imaams of the Haramain are kaafir, and hence Salaah behind them is not permissible.

We obviously do not agree with that stance. Notwithstanding certain differences we have with the Imaams of the Haramain, we maintain that they are Muslim and that Salaah behind them is permissible.

What is of concern is how Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb goes about establishing his point. His basic premise is contained in two rhetorical questions which he poses to his audience and which essentially go as follows:

Has Allah Ta’aala become so weak that he has allowed a kaafir to be the Imaam of his House?

Has Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) become so weak that he has allowed a kaafir to be the Imaam of his place of Salaah?

Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb could have easily addressed the issue without raising these spurious arguments.

The underlying teaching implicit and concealed within these two questions is extremely dangerous. It goes contrary to certain very basic and fundamental core beliefs of Islam.

Allah Ta’aala is totally independent of His creation. No conduct of the creation has any consequences or implications on Allah’s Ta’aala perfection and independence. Allah Ta’aala according to His absolute Wisdom allows evil, in various degrees, to exist on earth. Good and bad, virtue and vice, all exist by the permission and control of Allah (Azza wa Jal). The existence of evil does not in any way imply that Allah Ta’aala is weak (نعوذ بالله من ذالك).

This is supported by the famous Hadithul Qudsi wherein Allah Ta’aala teaches us that if all of mankind and Jinn had to be as evil as the most evil of man, then too this will not decrease Allah’s (Azza wa Jal) Grandeur and Greatness in the least bit.

Maulana Taariq Jameel’s first deductive reasoning goes like this:

If a kaafir had to be the Imaam of the Kaaba, it will imply that Allah Ta’aala is weak (Na’oodhu billaahi min dhalik). But since Allah Ta’aala is not weak, it implies that the Imaam of the Kaaba cannot be a kaafir.

His first proposition is not only totally false, it also betrays a very basic understanding of Uloohiyyah (the concept of godhood) in Islam.

Hypothetically it is possible for a kaafir to end up to be the Imaam of the Kaaba. I certainly am not saying that it has occurred, but merely stating that it is possible. And if it had to occur, it will not imply that Allah Ta’aala is weak (نعوذ بالله من ذالك).

There is no such rule in Deen which says that if a person is the Imaam of the Kaaba, then this is a guarantee that such a person has Imaan.

Allah Ta’aala in His supreme Wisdom even allows evil people to gain control over the Kaaba. Allah Ta’aala best knows the reasons for such worldly phenomenon.

Let alone that, before the end of time Allah Ta’aala will allow some evil persons from Habshah (Abyssinia) to physically tear down the Kaaba, which is worse than being the Imaam. None of these events can or will imply any weakness in Allah Ta’aala  (نعوذ بالله من ذ الك).

In 930 the Qarmaṭians (an extreme shiah sect) gained control over Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawarrah. They desecrated the Zamzam Well with corpses of the Hujjaaj and took the Hajrul Aswad from Makkah Mukarramah to al-Hasa. Such ghastly events can occur, and do not mean that Allah Ta’aala is weak (نعوذ بالله من ذالك).

Maulana Taariq Jameel’s second deductive reasoning goes like this:

If a kaafir had to be the Imaam of Madinah Munawwarah, it will imply that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is weak  (نعوذ بالله من ذالك). But since Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not weak, it implies that the Imaam of Madinah Munawwarah cannot be a kaafir.

Once again his first proposition is totally false and betrays a very basic understanding of Risaalah (prophethood) in Islam.

Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) strength exhibited itself during his lifetime. Once he (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) passed on from this world, no subsequent event in this world has any reflection on his strength or “weakness”. He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not control any worldly event from the after-world.

The concepts underpinning Maulana Taariq Jameel’s statements have serious implications for the listener’s Imaan. The average person will not be able to discern how he/she is being led toward an incorrect understanding of Tawheed and Risaalah. Hence it is not safe for such persons to be exposed to these bayaans.

D. Maulana Taariq Jameel on Me’raaj

In this audio clip, which requires careful listening, Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb explains the incident of Me’raaj – Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ascension to the heavens.

He firstly mixes the Aayah of Israa with the incident of Me’raaj. Secondly, the more serious issue is that he gives his audience the impression that Allah Ta’aala physically came down to earth to fetch Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Allah Ta’aala is free from time and space. It is incorrect to believe that Allah Ta’aala physically moves from place to place.

There are two separate questions before us in this regard.

(a) Can Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb redeem himself in respect of this specific clip? If one wants to give him the benefit of doubt and exonerate him, it is possible. After all he did in-between mention that Allah Ta’aala is free from time and space, and that this is just a mode of expression. This is not where our main concern lies.

(b) Is the Deen of the commoner being compromised by exposure to this clip? To interrogate this question one needs to undertake an exercise. Ask a layperson who has basic understanding of Urdu what he/she understood from the clip.

Notwithstanding the two exculpatory sentences that were inserted, the dominant impression, in the understanding of the layman, will still be that the clip conveys that Allah Ta’aala physically came down to earth  (نعوذ بالله من ذالك ). The average person does not have sufficient understanding whereby he/she can compute that the two exculpatory sentences were meant to cancel out or override what was mentioned in the other sentences.

At the very least, Maulana Taariq Jameel’s grossly negligent manner of expressing himself has a strong potential of leading the average listener towards the incorrect belief that Allah Ta’aala physically came down to earth (نعوذ بالله من ذالك).

Maulana Taariq Jameel’s bayaans contain many unreliable narrations, such as this one which states that Allah Ta’aala was the first to make the Janazah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The reasonable fear that the layperson may be putting his/her Aqeedah on the line is sufficient cause for concern. Better safe than sorry!

E. Mufti Zar Wali’s sounding of warnings with regards to Maulana Taariq Jameel

Mufti Zar Wali Khan is a senior Aalim of Pakistan, and the founder of Jamiah Arabia AhsanUl-Uloom.

In clips OneTwo and Three he sends out, in very stern terms, a clear warning against Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb.

All I wish to establish from the three clips is that:

(a) Mufti Zar Wali Saheb had an opportunity to personally engage Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb with respect to some of his contentious statements,

(b) Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb made certain admissions to Mufti Zar Wali Saheb, and

(c) Based on such interaction, Mufti Zar Wali Saheb felt it his duty to warn the public against Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb.

[Note: Whatever else appears on the clips are issues best dealt with directly with Mufti Zar Wali Saheb, should anyone have a concern. He may be contacted via the madrasah website It would be grossly unfair to expect me to be his self-appointed spokesman.]

Now when a senior, well-respected and reliable Aalim, also from Pakistan, who had the opportunity of questioning Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb sets off warning sirens, this would surely be sufficient reason for the layperson to, at the very least, adopt a cautionary position.

F. Maulana Taariq Jameel’s disrespectful demeanour towards Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam)

In this audio clip Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb discusses the incident where Allah Ta’aala instructed Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) to grab the snake, which was previously his walking-stick.

In the lives of the Ambiyaa (alayhis salaam) it is possible to find an incident or two which is intended to be humorous or light-hearted. This is definitely not one of them. The situation was a very serious one.

Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) was overcome with the natural human fear one has of a dangerous animal. There was nothing amusing about such fear.

When recounting the incident, Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb can clearly be heard giggling or laughing at Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam). The tone and mannerism adopted was indeed highly disrespectful. It is indicative of jeering, mocking or making fun. The audience can be heard joining in on the giggling or laughter.

Sadly in many quarters giving bayaans have become theatrical. The performer leads the audience, who must follow suite otherwise the bayaan loses its lustre and drive.

The average member of the congregation sheepishly follows the mob mentality. If the speaker, who is a world renowned orator, is doing it and the other members of the audience are unhesitatingly aping him, it must be acceptable in terms of how the layman thinks. It would be extremely rare for the layperson in such a situation to apply his independent mind and immediately slam on the brakes.

Herein lays the grave danger for the ordinary folk. They don’t realise that they are caught up in the ambience of the speaker and audience, hence dropping their guard and placing their Imaan in jeopardy.

The clip sends cold shivers down one’s spine. One cannot avoid the following question from crossing the mind:

Have the speaker and audience lost their Imaan?

What was the need for such theatrics?

What purpose does it serve?

Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb has many thousands of ardent followers. They need to seriously ask themselves where their allegiance lies – with the Ambiyaa (alayhis salaam) or with Maulana?

Without a shadow of doubt there is Imaani danger for a person to sit in such bayaans wherein grievous disrespect of a Nabi is shown.


The world and its entire contents are not even worth the wing of a mosquito. We all know that we will have to leave our worldly possessions behind one day. Yet, if we can afford it, we go the extra mile and acquire one further layer of security over our possessions.

Our Deen, which is infinitely more valuable, deserves a higher degree of protection and concern. It will not even cost us to abstain from that which could possibly put our Deen at risk.

The above brief words are motivated by our sense of duty to protect the Deen of the masses.

We advise the public, for the safety of their Deen, to abstain from listening to the Bayaans of Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb.

In this article we have stayed clear of making any judgment against Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb as a person. The aim is to protect the public, not to go after an individual.

Amongst the parting advices which Imaam Abu Hanifa gave to his famous student Imaam Abu Yusuf , he said:

Do not go after the faults of people, rather search out their correct deeds. If you come to know of some bad in a person, don’t mention it, but rather try to look for some good which you could then mention. (This should apply) except in the matters of Deen. There (in matters of Deen) if you see some bad in a person you must mention it to the people so that they do not follow this person and guard themselves against him.”

May Allah Ta’aala guide Maulana Taariq Jameel Saheb and us to the straight path, give him and us the ability to admit our errors, to make sincere tawbah and to die on Imaan.

Emraan Vawda

27 June 2018