Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī Explains Absurd Barelwī Philosophy on Prophetic Attributes

June 20, 2020

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān states:

An English translation follows:

A valuable point came to me during a lecture of mine. Keep it in mind. The totality of virtues is the full standard for the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). There are [only] four reasons why a benefactor would not grant a favour to another:

    1. Either the one giving is not able to bestow this favour
    2. He can give it but stinginess prevents him
    3. The one he is giving is not deserving of it
    4. Or he is deserving but there is one more beloved than him for whom he is reserving it.

Ulūhiyyah (divinity) is the only perfection that is not within divine power. All other perfections are within divine power. Allāh (exalted is He) is the most generous of the generous and the most giving of givers, and the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is deserving of every virtue and excellence. And there is none more beloved than the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) to Allāh. This entails that as many perfections, favours and blessings there are below divinity, God has granted them all in a complete way to the Prophet. Had granting divinity been within divine power, He would definitely have granted this also! Just as He said:

لو أردنا أن نتخذ لهوا لاتخذناه من لدنا إن كنا فعلين

“If We desired a son, then indeed We [would take one] from Our own side, if we were to do so.”

It is as though He is saying, Oh Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists, you have taken the Messiah, Ezra and the Angels as My sons. If I were to take a son for Myself, would I not take the one that is closest of all? Meaning, Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). (Malfūẓāt A‘lā Ḥaḍrat, p226-7)

An Arabic translation follows:

إني قد ألقي علي نكتة نفيسة عندما كنت ألقي وعظا. احفظوها

إن الفضائل جملةً هي المعيار الكامل لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؛ وذلك أن المنعم لعدم إعطائه نعمةً ما لغيره أربعة احتمالات: إما أن المعطي ليست له قدرة على هذه النعمة، أو يمكن له الإعطاء لكن منعه البخل، أو أن الذي لم يعطها إياه ليس أهلا لها، أو كان أهلا لكنه استأثر به من هو أحب إليه منه

الألوهية هي الكمال الوحيد الذي هو ليس تحت القدرة الإلهية، وأما سائر الكمالات سوى الألوهية فإنها تحت القدرة الإهية، والله تعالى أكرم الأكرمين وأجود من يجود، والرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم أهل لكل فضل وكمال، وليس أحد أحب إلى الله من الرسول، فاللازم أن الفضائل والنعم والبركات سوى الألوهية مهما قدرها فالله تعالى أعطاها على وجه الكمال للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولو كانت الألوهية تحت القدرة ليعطيها إياه أيضا لا محالة! كما قال: ((لو أردنا أن نتخذ لهوا – أي ولدا – لاتخذناه من لدنا إن كنا فعلين.)) كأنه قال: يا أيها النصارى ويا أيها اليهود ويا مشركي العرب! إنكم جعلتم المسيح وعزيرا والملائكة أولادا لي، ولو كنت متخذا ولدا ألست متخذا من هو الأقرب عندي؟ أي: محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم – من ملفوظات أعلحضرت، ص٢٢٦-٢٢٧

In other words, according to Barelwī logic all possible feats, powers and positive qualities must have been acquired by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). They can thus affirm the Prophet’s complete power and knowledge – he can hear everything, see everything, do everything; fly, breathe under water or not even breathe all (!), teleport, travel through space, time travel, etc. etc. It doesn’t matter to Barelwīs that this will result in going against clear evidence of Qur’ān (e.g. of the Prophet being Ummi and not knowing the Final Hour) and going against the rule of not affirming anything for the Prophet unless it is proven.

‘Allamāh ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī writes:

Attributing a virtue or a rank to his purified essence, the existence of which is not established in the holy prophetic essence by verses or reliable hadīths, is also from the greatest of major sins. The preachers should, therefore, pay attention, and the story-tellers and the exhorting and reproving sermonisers should beware, since they attribute many things to the holy person, the existence of which has not been established therein, and they think that in this is great reward due to establishing a virtue for the holy essence and elevating its stature, yet they are unaware that the prophetic virtues established in the authentic hadīths dispose of the need for these flimsy falsehoods. By my life, his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) virtues are outside the limit of encompassment and enumeration, and his merits, by which he excels all creation, are very many without end, so what is the need to extol him using falsehoods? Rather, this is a cause for great sin and deviation from the Straight Path. (al-Āthār al-Marfū‘ah)

If one is wondering how Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s logic above is flawed, there are two things to keep in mind:

  1. Human virtue is mainly determined by voluntary acts and spiritual condition, like worship, slavehood, abstinence, scrupulousness, sincerity, devotion etc. It is not determined by involuntary powers or feats Allāh grants like knowledge of useless things or powers of a supernatural nature. If Allāh grants these to some and not others, this does not prove the excellence of one and not the other.
  1. Premises two and four from Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s four premises are flawed. It is not only “stinginess” or “another being more deserving” that would prevent Allāh from giving a favour to someone. There could be a vast array of wisdoms and reasons why Allāh would withhold a quality from someone, including the Prophet. Does Aḥmad Riḍā Khān claim to encompass God’s knowledge? Allāh says: “He knows all that is before them and behind them, and they do not encompass Him in knowledge.” (20:110) Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī said to the effect: “The Ahl al-Bida‘ treat the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as though a god, but a deficient god, while the Ahl al-Sunnah treat the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as a slave but a perfect slave.”

What genuine Muslims and true Sunnis are supposed to do is accept what Allāh and His Messenger have taught; not contrive some formula to justify believing in fairy tales that go against explicit texts.

Also see: Barelwī Belief about the Prophet


Arabic Articles on Barelwism – مقالات عربية

June 7, 2020

Misguidance of Barelwis (انحراف البريلوية عن أهل السنة والجماعة)

The Topic of Imkan al-Kidhb (مسألة إمكان الكذب وموقف علماء ديوبند منها)

Refutation of the Allegation against Maulana Qasim Nanotwi (الجواب عما اتهم به الشيخ قاسم النانوتوي من إنكار ختم النبوة)

Refutation of Allegations against Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (الجواب عما اتهم به العلامة خليل أحمد السهارنفوري)

Refutation of the Allegation against Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi (الجواب عما اتهم به مولانا أشرف علي التهانوي)

Shah Muhammad Isma’il al-Dehlawi and the Meaning of Shirk (الشيخ محمد إسماعيل الدهلوي وحد الشرك)

The Meaning of Bid’ah (مفهوم البدعة فى الشرع)

Majālis al-Abrār by Shaykh Aḥmad Rūmī (d. 1041 H) – Endorsements of Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Dehlawī and ‘Allāmah ‘Abdul Ḥayy al-Laknawī

May 10, 2020

Majālis al-Abrār was written by Shaykh Aḥmad ibn al-Qādir al-Rūmī (d. 1041 H), a Turkish-Ottoman scholar from over 400 years ago. It is a book full of very beneficial discussions on a wide variety of subjects. He mentions the objective of the book in the introduction: “I compiled it for some of the brothers of ākhirah, along with adding what I found in reliable books of Tafsīr, Ḥadīth, Fiqh, Kalām and the Taṣawwuf of the elect, and I will explain in it the sound beliefs and the deeds of the next life, and I will caution against seeking help from graves and other acts of the disbelievers and misguided & misguiding wicked heretics, since I have seen many people of this time treating some graves like idols praying near them and sacrificing offerings, and acts and statements issuing from them not suited to possessors of īmān.” (Majālis al-Abrār, p2-3) He has an entire chapter (Majlis 17) refuting the practice of istighāthah and excesses done at graves.

Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz al-Dehlawī (1746 – 1824) said in his published fatāwā about Majālis al-Abrār: “It is a reliable book.” (mutabar ast) (Fatāwā ‘Azīzī, Mujtabā’ī Press, v2 p115)

Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz al-Dehlawī also said according to Ṣiddiq Ḥasan Khān al-Qinnawjaī in Itḥāf al-Nubalā’: “The book Majālis al-Abrār on knowledge, admonition and advice, contains many useful points of benefit on the secrets of Sharī‘ah, topics of Fiqh, topics of Sulūk and refuting innovations and despicable practices. We don’t know more about the status of the author than what is apparent from the work – which is that the author is a religious and scrupulous scholar, and had amassed different fields of the Shar‘i sciences. How brilliant is what someone said: ‘Don’t look at the speaker but look at the speech.’ Because people are recognised by truth; truth is not recognised by people.” (Majālis al-Abrār, Urdu Translation, p36)

‘Allāmah ‘Abdul Ḥayy al-Laknawi (1848 – 1886) said: It is a valuable book, relied upon (huwa kitābun nafīs mu‘tamad ‘alayh).” (Iqāmat al-Ḥujjah, ed. ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah, p. 19)

Read the book here.

See also:

Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Dehlawi on Istighathah

Barelwi Belief About the Prophet

April 22, 2020

Barelwi belief about the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) can be summarised as follows:

The Prophet is all-knowing, and thus knows the entire cosmos (from the start of creation till the final hour and beyond) in full detail, not even an atom escaping his all-encompassing knowledge. He is all-powerful, and thus has full control over everything in creation including sending people to heaven and hell. He is all-hearing and all-seeing, and thus hears and sees everything in creation. He can be physically present in many places at one time. Thus to call out to him for assistance, at times of distress or at other times, is completely justified (and encouraged), given he hears and knows the petitioner’s plea and has full powers to respond and carry out his request. (Major Barelwi scholars also hold that) He is not physically a man, but only appeared as a man (like the angel Jibril appeared to Maryam); his physical reality is a special light; he is thus, an utterly different form of creation to all that exists. We can name and regard our selves as his slaves (‘abd, ‘ibad).”

Apart from going against explicit texts of Qur’an and Hadith, for any Muslim of sound fitrah, who has not been poisoned by the Barelwi (or any Barelwi-esque) virus, such belief will immediately be seen for what it is: utterly repulsive and extreme. On such a view, one will be justified in having full reliance, trust and dependence in the Prophet, rather than Allah!

How do Barelwis justify such beliefs? By saying:

  1. All the above qualities were endowed by Allah, thus to hold such beliefs is not shirk;
  2. It does not entail making the Prophet exactly equal to Allah in any quality

This, in truth, is their only criterion. Everything else, about staying faithful to Qur’anic and Prophetic teachings, and imbibing the spirit of Islam (dependence only on Allah), just goes out the window.

In brief, the above-described belief about the Prophet is just like belief in a sub-God to a main God, but carefully modeled in such a way that it does not negate, in a strict sense, belief in tawhid.

Clear Kalām Texts on Deobandī Position on Allāh’s Power over Issuing an Untrue Statement (Imkān al-Kidhb)

March 28, 2020

Allāh having the power to issue an untrue statement in the kalām lafẓī (but it being impossible to occur), which is sometimes labelled “imkān al-kidhb”, is proven in clear texts of the Kalām-scholars.

Al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī (740 – 816 H) said:

“All the Mu‘tazilah and Khawārij consider it necessary for the perpetrator of a major sin to be punished when he dies without repenting, and they do not consider it possible that Allāh pardons him for two reasons: the first, that He, exalted is He, has given a warning of punishment for major sins and foretold it, i.e. punishment for it, so had He not punished on account of a major sin and pardoned, it would entail going back on His warning and falsehood in His report, which is impossible. The answer is that the most [that can be arrived at from] this is the punishment occurring, so whence the necessity which we are discussing? Since there is no doubt that the absence of necessity together with occurrence does not entail going back [on the threat] of falsehood.* It cannot be argued that this would entail they are possible which is also impossible because we respond that their being impossible is not accepted. How [can it be accepted] when they are from the possibilities contained in His, exalted is He, power?” (Sharḥ Mawaqif, 8:331)

Al-Siyālkūtī (d. 1067) says in explaining this passage: “If you say: Falsehood is a defect that is impossible for Him, exalted is He, by consensus, and there is no doubt that the possibility of the impossible is impossible, I say: It is evident that this discussion relates to the Mu‘tazilah who only believe in the kalām lafẓī. It has preceded that a defect in the kalām lafẓī is from the category of rational ugliness which we do not agree to. Yes, the negation of falsehood in His speech is established absolutely from the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). As for it being a matter that is impossible in itself (i.e. intrinsically impossible) on the basis that it is a defect, then this is not accepted.”** (ibid.)

It is thus clear that Sharīf al-Jurjānī is saying that kadhib (untrue speech) in the kalām lafẓī (not kalām nafsī) is not intrinsically impossible, but intrinsically possible, and included within divine power, while only extrinsically impossible.

Hence, a somewhat later Kalām-scholar (but pre-Deobandī/pre-Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī), Isma‘il al-Kalnabawi (1143 – 1205 AH), says:

In sum, falsehood being ugly in the kalam lafẓī, in the sense that it is an attribute of imperfection, is not accepted according to the Ash‘aris. This is why al-Sharif al-Muḥaqqiq [al-Jurjāni] said it is from the category of possibilities (mumkināt), and acquiring decisive knowledge of its non-occurrence in His speech, exalted is He, by consensus of the scholars and prophets upon them peace, does not negate its possibility in itself like all other definitive empirically-known things. And this does not negate what al-Rāzī said…” (Ḥāshiyat al-Kalnabawī ‘ala ‘l-Jalāl, p.449-50)

Ibn Abī Sharīf (822 – 906 H) and Ibn al-Humām (790 – 861 H) also said this is the view of the Ash‘arīs:

“The author of al-‘Umdah said Allāh, exalted is He, is not characterised with power over injustice, foolery and falsehood because the impossible is not included under power, meaning is not suitable as a connection to it, and according the Mu‘tazilah He, exalted is He, has power over all that has been mentioned but doesn’t do it. Here ends the statement of the author of al-‘Umdah. It appears what he related from the Mu‘tazilah was mixed up by him since there is no doubt that the absence of power over what has been mentioned – injustice, foolery and falsehood – is the position of the Mu‘azilah. As for its presence, i.e. power over what has been mentioned, and then the impossibility of connection to it volitionally, it is more suited to the position of the Ash‘arīs than it is to the position of the Mu‘tazilah. It is not hidden that this more suited position is also more inclusive of transcendence, since there is no doubt that refraining from them, i.e. the things mentioned: injustice, foolery and falsehood, is from the matter of transcendence from what is not suited to His Holy Self, exalted is He. So the mind will assess which of the two views is more far-reaching in transcendence from ugliness, is it power over it, i.e. over the three things that have been mentioned, together with His, exalted is He, refraining from it choosing this refrainment, or refraining from it due to not having power of it? The view more inclusive of transcendence must be adopted, which is the view more suited to the position of the Ash‘arīs.” (al-Musāmarah, 2:65)

Here Ibn al-Humām and Ibn Abī Sharīf support the Ash‘arī view that issuing an untrue statement (in the kalām lafẓī) is included within divine power but impossible to occur, arguing that this is more inclusive of transcendence, given that it affirms Allāh’s power (hence, does not entail any inability or impotence), while negating the possibility of occurrence.

What about statements from the Ash‘arī Kalām-scholars which apparently say otherwise? These either refer to the kalām nafsī or refer to extrinsic impossibility and not intrinsic impossibility.

For more detail, see:

Clarification on Imkān al-Kidhb

Arabic Summary of Juhd al-Muqill

* Meaning, the punishment occurring while it not being necessary for Allāh to do so does not entail going back on His word or falsehood. So it is possible to maintain that punishment will occur but that it is not necessary.

** It should be noted Abu Hasan, the fraud and liar, has translated the latter crucial sentence fraudulently. The sentence in Arabic is as follows:

وأما أنه أمر محال في نفسه بناء على أنه نقص فممنوع

Which has been translated accurately above as:

As for it being a matter that is impossible in itself (i.e. intrinsically impossible) on the basis that it is a defect, then this is not accepted.

Abu Hasan translates this as:

“But the fact that it is muhal intrinsically [for kalam lafži] based on the fact that it is a flaw cannot be used as an evidence [in this case].” (The Truth about a Lie, p69)

In this very same comment, shortly earlier (as translated above), Siyālkūtī said impossibility on account of it being a defect in the kalām lafẓī is not accepted, as it is the same as rational ugliness. He is simply reiterating this here. Abu Hasan’s fraudulent “translation” conveys the opposite meaning.

A Tale of Deception – Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī and Takfīr of the Akābir of Deoband

March 18, 2020

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921 CE) used lies and deception to mislead and guilt people into accepting his slanderous takfīr of four of the great ‘ulamā’ of Deoband, namely:

  1. Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905 CE)
  2. Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī (1833 – 1880 CE)
  3. Maulānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927 CE)
  4. Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943 CE)

He even went as far as to say anyone who doubts his takfīr of them becomes a kāfir!

The following series of articles exposes in clear and vivid detail how Aḥmad Riḍā Khān is guilty of deception and fraud in each one of these allegations:

How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī Used a Fabricated Fatwā to Make Takfīr on Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī

How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī Manufactured a Quote from Taḥdḥir un Nās to Make Takfīr on Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī

How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī Distorted the Meaning of Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah to Make Takfīr on Maulānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī

How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Distorted Ḥifẓ al-Īmān to Make Takfīr on Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī

Please read and share with interested parties.

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s Extremism on the Knowledge of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)

March 10, 2020

 Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī writes:

A translation is as follows:

“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of earlier and later ones. 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 (mā kāna wa mā yakūn) has been told to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. The great knowledge of the Noble Beloved (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) encompasses all of these. 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 Allāh. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh 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 …” (Inbā’ al-Muṣṭafā; in: Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Riḍā Foundation, 29:487)

This is an example of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī’s extremism in describing the knowledge of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).

The books of the Ḥanafī school are clear that such a belief is blasphemous. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: “A [man] weds [a woman] without witnesses, saying: ‘I make the Messenger of Allāh and Angels witness’, he has become a Kāfir, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb, as distinguished from his saying: ‘I make the angel on the left shoulder and the angel on the right shoulder witness’, he would not become Kāfir, because they are aware [of that].” (al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah, 6:325) In al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī (Idārat al-Qur’ān, 7:407), the same mas’alah is found ending with: “because they are aware of that as they are not absent from him.”

Moreover, according to a mutawātir ḥadīth that is clear in its meaning, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) foretold that on Judgement Day there will be people driven away from him that he will call and he will be told by Allāh/Angels that he has no knowledge of what they did. See here. This is categorical in showing the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not have complete and detailed knowledge of all creation in the manner that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī describes.

Furthermore, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) sought protection from knowledge that is of no benefit, as found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. That the Prophet made this supplication is reported by several ṣaḥābah including ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr, Abū Hurayrah, Anas ibn Mālik and Zayd ibn Arqam with authentic chains – making it close to a categorically established ḥadīth. Knowledge of no benefit would of course include useless knowledge of the world, let alone knowledge of dirty and filthy things which is unbefitting the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Hence, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) also said: “You are more aware of the matters of your world.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)


Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s Definition of Shirk in Radd al-Ishrāk

March 5, 2020

Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd (1779 – 1831) wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān (Strengthening Īmān) in 1818. Some decades later, Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872) – a predecessor to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān – alleged in a work called Sayf al-Jabbār that Taqwiyat al-Īmān was literally a translation and explanation of a summary of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s (1703 – 1792) Kitāb al-Tawīd, written by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb himself – and hence was literally a Wahhābī document. Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921) then repeated this claim. As explained in an earlier post, this narrative is entirely fictional and based completely on a fabrication.

Taqwiyat al-Īmān is indeed based on an earlier work, but an earlier work written by Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd himself called Radd al-Ishrāk (Refutation of Shirk), which he wrote some decades previously in 1799, in Arabic.

Radd al-Ishrāk is essentially a collection of verses and ḥadīths refuting shirk proper as well as things derived from shirk and things leading to it. In a very important introduction to Radd al-Ishrāk, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd explains what shirk means, leaving no doubt whatsoever that his definition of shirk is far-removed from that of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb.

The following images are from pages 15 – 17 of this edition of the book.


The Arabic is as follows:

اعلم أن الإشراك – الذي أنزل الكتب الإلهية لإبطاله وبعث الأنبياء لمحقه – ليس مقصورا على أن يعتقد أحد أن معبوده مماثل للرب تبارك وتعالى في وجوب الوجود، أو إحاطة العلم بجميع الكائنات، أو الخالقية لأصول العوالم كالسماء والأرض، أو التصرف في جميع الممكنات، فإن هذا الإعتقاد ليس من شأن الإنسان أن يتلوث به، اللهم (إلا) أن كان ممسوخا كفرعون وأمثاله، وليس لأحد أن يذعن بأن الكتب الإلهية إنما نزلت والأنبياء إنما بعثت لأجل إصلاح أمثال هؤلاء الممسوخين فقط، كيف ومشركوا العرب الذين سماهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمشركين وقاتلهم وأراق دماءهم وسبى ذراريهم ونهب أموالهم لم يكونوا مذعنين بهذا الإعتقاد، بدليل قوله تعالى: ((قل من بيده ملكوت كل شيء وهو يجير ولا يجار عليه إن كنتم تعلمون، سيقولون: الله، فل: فأنى تسحرون؟)) وأمثال هذه الآية كثيرة جدا.

بل معناه أن يشرك أحدا من سوى الله معه تعالى فى الألوهية أو الربوبية.

ومعنى الألوهية أن يعتقد في حقه أنه بلغ فى الإتصاف بصفات الكمال من العلم المحيط أو التصرف بمجرد القهر والإرادة مبلغا جل عن المماثلة والمجانسة مع سائر المخلوقين، وذلك بأن يعتقد أنه ما من أمر يحدث سواء كان من الجواهر أو الأعراض فى الأقوال أو الأفعال أو الإعتقاد أو العزائم والإرادات والنيات إلا وهو ممتنع أن يغيب من علمه وهو شاهد عليه أو يعتقد أنه يتصرف فى الأشياء بالقهر أي: ليس تصرفه فى الأشياء من جملة الأسباب بل هو قاهر على الأسباب.

ومعنى الربوبية أنه بلغ في رجوع الحوائج واستحلال المشكلات واستدفاع البلايا بمجرد الإرادة والقهر على الأسباب مبلغا استحق به غاية الخضوع والتذلل، أي: ليس للتذلل لديه والخضوع عنده حد محدود، فما من تذلل وخضوع إلا وهو مستحسن بالنسبة إليه وهو مستحق له.

فتحقق أن الإشراك على نوعين: إشراك فى العلم وإشراك فى التصرف. ويتفرع منهما: الإشراك فى العبادات، وذلك بأنه إذا اعتقد في أحد أن علمه محيط وتصرفه قاهر فلا بد أنه يتذلل عنده ويفعل لديه أفعال التعظيم والخضوع، ويعظمه تعظيما لا يكون من جنس التعظيمات المتعارفة فيما بين الناس، وهو المسمى بالعبادة. ثم يتفرع عليه: الإشراك فى العادات وذلك بأنه إذا اعتقد أن معبوده عالم بالعلم المحيط متصرف بالتصرف القهري لا جرم أنه يعظمه في أثناء مجارى عاداته بأن يميز ما ينتسب إليه كاسمه وبيته ونذره وأمثال ذلك من سائر الأمور بتعظيم ما.

وقد رد الله تعالى في محكم كتابه أولا وعلى لسان نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم ثانيا على جميع أنواع الشرك على أصوله وفروعه وذرائعه وأبوابه ومجمله ومفضله

A translation is as follows:

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

Rather, the meaning is to make another besides Allāh a partner with Him (Exalted is He) in divinity (ulūhiyyah) or lordship (rubūbiyyah).

The meaning of “divinity” is to believe in respect to him that he has reached such a degree in qualities of perfection like encompassing knowledge, disposal by mere subjugation and will, that he is beyond comparison and similarity with the rest of creation; which is by believing that nothing occurs, whether from substances or accidents in statements or deeds, belief or commitments, wills or intentions, but that it is impossible for it to be hidden from his knowledge and he is witness to it; or believing that he disposes in things by subjugation, meaning his disposal in things is not from the totality of the means [Allāh has put in creation] but he subjugates the means.

The meaning of “lordship” is that he has reached such a degree in referring needs [to him], asking for solutions to problems and asking for the removal of tribulations by his mere will and subjugating the means that he deserves utmost servility and humbleness. That is, there is no limit to the extent of servility and humbleness shown to him, and there is no servility or humbleness but it is good in respect to him, and he is deserving of it.

Thus, it is realised that shirk is of two types: shirk in knowledge and shirk in disposal. Shirk in rituals (‘ibādāt) derives from them, which is when one believes about someone that his knowledge is encompassing and his disposal is subjugating he will inevitably become servile before him and do with him acts of exaltation and humility, and glorify him with such glorification that is not from the category of normal glorifications amongst people – this is called worship.

Further, shirk in customs derives from this, which is that when one believes that the one worshipped is knowing with encompassing knowledge and disposing with subjugating disposal, he will inevitably glorify him within the course of his habits in that he will distinguish that which is attributed to him like his name, house and vow and the likes of that from all matters with some form of glorification. Allāh, exalted is He, has refuted within His decisive speech first, and on the tongue of his Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) secondly all types of shirk: its foundations and its branches, its means and its doors, its generality and its specifics.

Note how Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd – contra Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb – very clearly explains the meaning of shirk in ‘ibādah as something emanating from a false belief. This is something that sets him apart from Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and Wahhābīs.

Shaykh ‘Uthmān Nābulusī from Jordan wrote a detailed work on mistaken Wahhābī conceptions on tawīd and shirk (available here). Having read this introduction from Radd al-Ishrāk, he wrote:

هذه المقدمة لا غبار عليها، والفرق شاسع جدا بين كلامه وكلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب

“This introduction is unproblematic, and the difference is very vast between his speech and the speech of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb.”

Sharīf Ḥātim al-‘Awnī, a Makkah-based researcher, has written against extremist Wahhābī views on shrik. Recently, he has posted images of this introduction from a more recent edition of Radd al-Ishrāk:

He commented:

معنى الألوهية والربوبية وبيان شرك العبادة، بما يوافق تعريفي لها ويخالف تعريف المكفرين

“The meaning of ulūhiyyah and rubūbiyyah and an explanation of shirk al-‘ibādah in a manner that accords with my definition of them and opposes the definition of the takfīrīs.”

Regarding Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd’s more non-technical explanation and denunciation of shirk within Taqwiyat al-Īmān, see here and here.

Another thing to note is that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb can both be described as “activists”. The latter however targeted Muslims with takfir and subsequently took military action against them. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and his movement under the leadership of Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd did not target Muslims, but carried out the work of reformation (iṣlāḥ). Tens of thousands of ignorant and nonpractising Muslims repented at their hands and perfected their Islām. (Ṣiyānat al-Nās, p4) When Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd and Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd engaged in Jihād, military activity, it was not against Muslims that were wrongly accused of having disbelieved, but against actual disbelievers: the Sikhs of Punjab. They were eventually martyred at the hands of these very Sikhs.

The contrast between the ideology and activism of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, therefore, could not have been greater. To link the two is a great calumny and slander.

“And those who abuse believing men and women, when they have not merited it, bear the weight of slander and manifest sin.” (Qur’ān, 33:58)

See also:

‘Abaqat of Shah Isma’il Shahid

Mawlana Madani on the Accusation that Sayyid Ahmad Shahid was a “Wahhabi”

Who was Shah Isma’il Refuting in Taqwiyat al-Iman?

Intelligence of Shah Muhammad Isma’il

Fabricating to Wahhābify Taqwiyat al-Īmān – The Case of Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī and Sayful Jabbār

December 18, 2019

Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872), a predecessor to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (& someone greatly admired by him), and someone who opposed Shāh Waliyyullāh in writing (& apparently had Shī‘ī tendencies), wrote a tract called Sayful Jabbār against Mawlānā Ismā‘īl Dehlawī and his Taqwiyat al-Īmān, alleging that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a spinoff of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb‘s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, and is thus literally Wahhābī in its provenance.

Sayful Jabbār was written around 1849, almost two decades after Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was martyred, and more than three decades after Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written. In this work, Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī presents to readers an Arabic epistle that he claims is authored by Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb as a summary of the contents of his larger work Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. He states that this summary was refuted by scholars of Makkah in 1221 H/1806 CE, which was penned down by a certain “Aḥmad ibn Yūnus al-Bā‘alawī”. However, this entire tale and the epistle itself are an obvious forgery.

Fabricators (including Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī himself?) had taken Taqwiyat al-Īmān as a base text, and “translated” parts of it into Arabic, giving it the worst possible interpretation, and then claimed that this is Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s summary of his own book Kitāb al-Tawḥīd! One can read Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, and find that it bears no resemblance with this supposed summary. Rather, the alleged summary follows the order of Taqwiyat al-Īmān topically, but with additions and alterations that make it appear “Wahhābī” and extreme, and without the clear reference in the original Taqwiyat al-Īmān to the Hindu and Shi‘ī influences peculiar to an Indian context that Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī was refuting.

The following are some examples showing clearly that this is a fabrication, and neither Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhāb nor Shāh Ismā‘īl could have written such a thing. References are to this edition of Sayful Jabbār. For the entire section describing the alleged Arabic epistle, see pages 99 – 193 of the work.

On page 156 of Sayful Jabbār, Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī quotes from this alleged summary of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd:

وأما الشفاعة بالإذن التي كلا شفاعة وهو المذكور فى القرآن والحديث فحالها أنها لا تكون لأهل الكبائر الذين ماتوا بلا توبة ولا للمصرين

“Intercession by permission which is like no intercession, and which is the one that is mentioned in the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth, its condition is that it will not occur for the perpetrators of major sins who died without repentance nor for those who persisted [on sins].”

The passage of Taqwiyat al-Īmān (p45) from which the fabricators drew this sentence is talking about the correct type of Shafā‘ah, which is that the sinner knows he doesn’t have anywhere to hide or run or seek protection against Allāh’s judgement i.e. he is a Muwaḥḥid, not a Mushrik. In this case, he will be deserving of Allāh granting permission to a close slave of His to seek intercession for him which will be a means of his being pardoned.

On page 169 of Sayful Jabbār, Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī quotes from this alleged summary:

 فثبت بهذه الآية أن السفر إلى قبر محمد ومشاهده ومساجده وآثاره وقبر نبي وولي وسائر الأوثان وكذا طوافه وتعظيم حرمه وترك الصيد والتحرز عن قطع الشجر وغيرها شرك أكبر، فإن الله تعالى خصص هذه الأمور لذاته وأنزل هذه الآية لبيانه

“It is proven from this verse that travelling to the grave of Muḥammad and his sites, masjids and relics, and the grave of a prophet or saint and all idols, and likewise, circumambulating it and glorying its sanctuary, and leaving out hunting and avoiding cutting the trees etc., are Shirk Akbar (!), because Allāh, exalted is He, has made these things specific to His being and sent down this verse to explain this.”

Even Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb does not go as far as to say undertaking a journey to visit the grave of Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is Shirk Akbar!

In Taqwiyat al-Īmān p57 the passage from which this sentence is “translated” is censuring the treatment of any place as a place of pilgrimage, where one slaughters an animal, makes ṭawāf and offerings etc. It does not refer to the grave of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) specifically; and it does not say that these actions are “Shirk Akbar”! It says only that they are “things to do with Shirk” (shirk kī bātein), which can refer to the lesser Shirk which Shāh Ismā‘īl explicitly referred to in an earlier part of his book.

On page 183 of Sayful Jabbār, Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī quotes from this alleged summary of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd:

أنظر كيف صرح النبي بشرك من حلف بغير الله فكيف نقول بإيمان من يقول بأبي وأمي وأبيه وبالنبي والمولى، فالحالف لهم مشرك كالحالف باللات والعزى

“Look how the Prophet has stated the one who takes an oath by other than Allāh has committed Shirk, so how can we propose one who says: ‘I swear by my father’ or: ‘I swear by my mother’ or: ‘I swear by his father’ or ‘by the Prophet’ or ‘by the master’ has faith? The one who swears by them is a Mushrik just like one who swears by Lāt and ‘Uzzā.”

Again, this is extremism not found even in Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. What the corresponding passage of Taqwiyat al-Īmān (p85-6) actually states is: “It is realised from these ḥadīths that oaths are not to be taken by other than Allāh, and if it emerges from the tongue, then repentance should be made. Those by whom taking oaths was normal practice for the Mushrikīn [i.e. like Lāt and ‘Uzzā], there is infraction to īmān by taking oath by them.”

Shāh Ismā‘īl clearly differentiates between taking oath by Lāt, ‘Uzzā etc., in which case there is danger to īmān; and taking oath by others, which is not a danger to īmān but requires repentance.

There can be no doubt that the Arabic epistle Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī presents here is a fabrication. Even the introduction to the epistle suggests fabrication, as it calls Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb “‘Abd al-Wahhāb”. The language throughout is poor, and is further proof that it could not have been authored by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb or Shāh Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī.

It is based on this fabrication that Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī says Taqwiyat al-Īmān is like a translation and commentary of a summary of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (Sayful Jabbār, p99) and Aḥmad Riḍā Khān says it is a translation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd itself. This fabrication then formed the basis of the critique of the likes of Abu ‘l-Ḥasan Fārūqī (in his Mawlānā Ismā‘īl aur Taqwiyatul Īmān).

The alleged summary of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd was probably fabricated some time in the 1840s. Given a whole book was fabricated to defame Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in order to make Taqwiyat al-Īmān out to be an outrageous book, and a spinoff of the notorious Arabian Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, is it difficult to believe that in the 1890s (or a little sooner) a fatwā was fabricated in the name of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī that made out he believed it is permissible to hold the view that lying has actually occurred in Allāh’s speech? – A fatwā that he denied, as recorded by his student Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī, and not found in any of his published Fatāwā, and not recognised by his students. (The fabricated fatwā appears to be based on a passage of Barāhīn Qāṭi‘ah, just like the fabricated book was based on Taqwiyat al-Īmān itself.)

These are examples of outright fabrication, on the latter of which Aḥmad Riḍā Khān based his takfīr of Mawlānā Gangohī and all who do not recognise him to be a kāfir. The other takfīrs of the elders of Deoband are also in reality based on “fabrications”, although fabrications of meaning rather than fabrications of text, like the fabrication that Mawlānā Nānotwī claimed it actually possible for a new prophet to be appointed after the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), or the fabrication that Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī had written that Satan’s knowledge is superior to the Prophet’s, or that Mawlānā Thānawī had written that the Prophet’s knowledge of unseen is equal to that of animals, children and madmen. See for refutations: here, here and here.

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s contemporary heirs also have no problem with outright fabrication and lies. Like Aqdas Misbahi, who was exposed for lying about Taqwiyat al-Īmān, and still has not made a proper retraction or any kind of apology.

See also: the lies of Asrar Rashid, and the lies of Abu Hasan Barelwi.

Barelwī Opponents of Shāh Waliyyullāh Dehlawī Raḥimahullāh

February 13, 2019

Shāh Waliyyullāh Dehlawī (1703 – 1762) was the great fountainhead of Indian ḥadīth scholarship. His acceptance and pivotal role in representing the Ahl al-Sunnah of India is in need of no introduction. There is a clear tension between Shāh Waliyyullāh’s opposition to excessive personality-veneration/innovated practices and Barelwī support of them. Thus we find some clear opposition to Shāh Waliyyullāh amongst Barelwī scholars.

Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī

Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872), regarded as one of the prominent predecessors of the Barelwī/RazāKhānī school, clearly wrote in opposition to Shāh Waliyyullāh. Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921) had written a brief commentary on one of Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī’s books (al-Mu‘taqat al-Muntaqad) referring to him in it as “the seal of verifiers, support of inspectors, sword of Islām, lion of the Sunnah” etc. (al-Mustanad al-Mu‘tamad, p. 8)

[On the other hand, when Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī was studying at Delhi (between 1845 – 1850), he once encountered Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī who was visiting for a lecture. Mawlānā Gangohī sat at the lecture and found his statements and evidences extremely problematic, and never returned to him again. (Tazkirat al-Rashīd, p. 36)]

In a work called al-Bawāriq al-Muḥammadiyyah, Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī attacks Shāh Waliyyullāh al-Dehlawī. On pages 28-31 of the book, he attacks Shāh Waliyyullāh’s celebrated work, Izālat al-Khafā, claiming it is like a Khārijī book! He claims it appears the topic of the work is “removing khilāfah from the seal of khilāfah and the opener of wilāyah (i.e. ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu)” (p. 31). He then concludes: “In sum, the writings of Shāh Waliyyullāh are opposed to the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah.” Referring to Tafhīmāt Ilāhiyyah and “other writings” of Shāh Waliyyullāh he claims these demonstrate his claim, but the sons of Shāh Waliyyullāh, according to him, suppressed these works! (ibid. p. 32)

Images from the book:

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself stopped short of directly attacking Shāh Waliyyullāh Dehlawī and his sons, but he regarded Shāh Muḥammad Ismā‘īl Dehlawī (1779 – 1831) and Shāh Muḥammad Isḥaq Dehlawī (1783 – 1846), prominent members of the family and direct students/successors of Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Dehlawī (1746 – 1824), to be the progenitors of the “Wahhābīs”, referring to their followers/admirers as “Ismā‘īlī Wahhābīs” and “Isḥāqī Wahhābīs” respectively. (e.g. Fatawa Riḍawiyya, Riḍā Foundation, 15:236; 20:246) This was probably more for practical, rather than principled reasons, however, because the views of Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī he took issue with are traceable to his predecessors like Shāh Waliyyullāh, Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz and Qāḍī Thanā’ullāh Pānipatī. See al-Junnah li Ahl al-Sunnah by Muftī ‘Abdul Ghanī Patialvī and the writings of Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar for documentation.

Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharwī

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s opposition to the Waliyyullāh family, of course, opened the door to attacks on Shāh Waliyyullāh himself. Muḥammad Umar Icharvī (1902 – 1971) is a well-known Barelwī “scholar”. He is a student of one of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s students, regarded as “Munāẓir e Islām” in Barelwī circles and greatly admired by them as a defender of their “maslak” (see: Tazkirah Akābir Ahl e Sunnat by ‘Abd al-Ḥakīm Sharaf, p. 498 – 500).

In his work Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, he wrote against Shāh Waliyyullāh claiming he was directly influenced by Muḥammad ibn al-Wahhāb (1703 – 1792) while he was in the Ḥijāz. As a result, he claims Shāh Waliyyullāh became a Wahhābī and promoted Wahhābī ideas in his books. He claims his sons reverted to the way of their grandfather (Shāh Waliyyullāh’s father), but were influenced by some of the Wahhābī ideas of their father. (Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, p. 575-7)

Of course the claim that Shāh Waliyyullāh was directly influenced by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb is completely without foundation. What this does demonstrate however is that Barelwīs oppose the ideas of Shāh Waliyyullāh himself and regard them to be “Wahhābī”. Some, like ‘Umar Icharwī, are honest in this respect, while others like Aḥmad Riḍā Khān try to skirt the issue.

Images from the book:

Because Barelwī mythology is rooted in the idea that their version of Islām, comprising of exaggerated personality-veneration and innovations, is true Sunnism, they characterise all genuine Sunnī opposition to them as being “Wahhābī” in origin, and thus have to somehow force a link between Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and the Indian “Wahhābīs”. Icharwī does so by falsely claiming a direct link between Shāh Waliyyullāh and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. Aḥmad Riḍā Khān does so by falsely claiming a direct link between Shāh Ismā‘īl and the ideas of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, even making the preposterous and resoundingly false claim that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a translation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd! Such myths and fables are used to fortify the psuedo-Sunnī Barelwī religion against valid criticism – by simply throwing them off as being “Wahhābī” in origin. The reality of course is that genuine Sunnī scholars have always written against exaggerated personality-veneration and innovations, and this is not peculiar to Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb or Wahhābīs.


Misguided Barelwi Belief: The Prophet is Mukhtar e Kull/All-Powerful

January 27, 2019

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān states: “Allāh Ta‘ālā is the ‘intrinsic assister’ (bizzāt madadgār) and this characteristic does not belong to any other. The Messenger and Awliyā of Allāh are assisters via Allāh giving them the power. All praise to Allāh!…Allāh Subḥānahū intrinsically waives harm while the Prophets and Awliyā (upon them blessing and praise) by God’s bestowal [waive harm].” (al-Amn wa l-‘Ulā, Fayḍān e Madīnah Publications, p. 125)

He further states: “Allāh’s deputy [i.e. Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam], on Allāh’s behalf, has the authority of complete discretion (taṣarruf) in Allāh’s kingdom.” (ibid. p. 136)

He states further: “The entire workshop of taking and giving from the Divine Court are in the hands of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam.” (ibid. 102)

He describes the “keys the Owner of the Kingdom, the King of Kings, the All-Powerful, Jalla Jalāluhu, gave to his greatest deputy and most eminent representative ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam: keys to treasures, keys to the earth, keys to the world, keys of aid, keys of benefit, keys of paradise, keys of hellfire, keys of everything.” (ibid. 142-3)

How does he get around this belief amounting to shirk? He says: “When it is accepted that [the powers] are God-given, what is the meaning of shirk?” (ibid. p. 72)

He says in another work: “Ḥuḍūr, master of both worlds, Allāh bless him and grant him peace, is the greatest deputy of Allāh and is the one that distributes His provision. If any blessing of religion, this world or the next, is received, then it is only from Ḥuḍūr; it was received from the graceful and merciful hand of Ḥuḍūr. (Inbā’ al-Ḥayy, p413) He mentions furhter that he has written a whole book on this called Salṭanat al-Muṣṭafā (The Sovereignty of the Chosen One).

Describing this Barelwī belief, Amjad ‘Alī A‘ẓamī (1882 – 1948), one of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s closest disciples and successors, wrote while describing “true Islāmic beliefs” (this being the 50th belief regarding nubuwwah): “Ḥuḍūr Aqdas (Allāh bless him and give him peace) is the absolute deputy of Allah ‘azza wa jall. The entire universe has been put under the control (taṣarruf) of Ḥuḍūr. He may do as he desires, give to whomsoever he wishes, take from anyone whatever he desires. None in the universe can turn back his rulings. The entire universe is under his governance and he is under the authority of none except Allāh. He is the owner (mālik) of all humans. Anyone who does not accept him to be his owner (mālik) remains devoid of the sweetness of the Sunnah. All the earth is his property. The entire paradise is his estate. The kingdom of earth and the sky are under Ḥuḍūr’s command. The keys to paradise and hell have been given to him in his holy hand. Sustenance, goodness and other types of blessings are distributed from his noble office. This world and the hereafter is a portion of his blessings. The rulings of Shari‘ah have been delegated to his authority. He may make impermissible (arām) for anyone whatever he decides. Similarly, he may make permissible (alāl) whatever he wishes and exempt whatever obligation (far) he desires.” (Bahār e Sharī‘at, p. 42-3)

For a thorough refutation of such false belief, see Dil Kā Surūr (written in 1951) of Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Safdar.

Blasphemous Barelwī Belief: The Prophet is Not a Human Being in Reality but Only Appeared in Human “Garb”

January 25, 2019

One of the most perverted and repugnant Barelwī beliefs is that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not from the jins (species) of humanity, but was a separate creation made of light that came in human form. To illustrate their belief, Barelwīs will often draw an analogy with Jibrīl (‘alayhissalām) – who is an angel made of light that at times came in human form. Hence, according to this Barelwī belief, in his physical reality, the Prophet is not a human being. This is a blasphemous belief.

The Fatwā of Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī

In a fatwā dated Shawwāl of 1346 H (1928 CE), Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) describes the statement of a preacher that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was a human being in outward form but not in reality (ānḥaḍrat ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam dar ẓāhir ṣūrat bashar būd walekin dar ḥaqīqat bashar nabūd) as kufr. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, Maktabah Dārul ‘Ulūm Karāchī, 5:234)

The Correct Sunnī Belief

Describing correct Sunnī belief, Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar (1914 – 2009) said: “Our īmān and conclusion is that Imām al-Rusul Khātam al-Nabiyyīn Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was a human being as well as light. From the perspective of his species and essence, he was a human being, and from the perspective of his character and guidance he was a light. By virtue of him, the world of darkness acquired light. The darkness of kufr and shirk disappeared and from the rays of the light of īmān and tawḥīd, the surface of the earth became illuminated.” (Nūr wa Bashar, Maktabah ‘Ukāẓ, p. 8) Explaining correct belief, Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī said: “In terms of being a human being, in terms of physical composition and make-up, he is the same as the ummah.” (Quoted in Nūr wa Bashar, p. 82-3)

Disrespect of the Prophet

Indeed, denying that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is from the human species is degrading his lofty status since human beings are the greatest of species. ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927) said: “To take out his (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) person from being human – which is the noblest and most exalted of creation – and placing him in another species is pure disrespect and degradation of his lofty station…There is no doubt that brotherhood in the very property of being a human being, and equality in terms of being from the children of Ādam, has been established in the text of the Qur’ān; while, in the perfections of proximity, nobody has called him a brother or believes him to be equal [with others].” (al-Barāhīn al-Qāṭi‘ah, Dārul Ishā‘at, p. 7)

Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī: The Prophet is a Light that Came in Human Garb

According to this popular Barelwī belief, articulated by some of their leading scholars, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not a human being in reality, but only appeared as one outwardly. Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī (1901 – 1971), a prominent Barelwī scholar, debater and writer, said: “It is established from this noble verse that the reality of the Chosen One (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was not of human nature, but his reality was of light.” (Miqyās e Nūr, Makabah Sulṭāniyyah, p. 24)

Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī further says: “The Chosen One (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was really light, and the divine power sent him into the world through the intermediary of parents by giving the light a human and luminous form. The Muḥammadan reality of light overpowered his blessed body. Thus, from amongst the creatures made of light, angels were also of light. However, when Ḥaḍrat Jibrīl Amīn (upon him peace) appeared, dressed in a human body, his human body overpowered his luminuous nature, such that in this specific bodily form he could not fly to the furthest lote tree, and in fact he could not go to the first heaven. But the true light of the Chosen One (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) overpowered his human body, which together with the bodily and luminous nature traversed all the heavens.” (ibid. 26-7)

While justifying his belief vis a vis the Prophet’s clearly human features, ‘Umar Icharvī says: “Jibrīl too came in the form of a human being, and he too came adorned with human features like hands, feet, nose, ears…If Jibrīl (upon him peace) coming in human garb and hands, feet and so on appearing on him do not cause any difference to him being a light, then the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace)’s pure hand and pure feet being apparent does not necessitate any difference to him being a [physical] light.” (Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, p. 242-3)

Icharvī even goes as far as to analogise the Prophet in this respect to Allāh! He says: “Just as it is necessary to adopt īmān in hands that are without equal, a shin without equal and a face without equal for the pure and free essence of Allāh (Exalted is He), you have been prohibited from drawing any likeness with the pure limbs of the embodied light of the Noble Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and have to adopt īmān [in this]. Allāh (Exalted is He) is without comparison in His essence and characteristics and He created His beloved (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) from pure light, so he manifested his essence together with his characteristics without any equal.” (ibid. p. 243)

Analogies of this kind between the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Allāh when making such points are not uncommon in Barelwī literature.

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: The Prophet is not from Jinn, Man or Angels

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī (1906 – 1971), another very well-known and accepted Barelwī scholar (and student of famous Barelwī scholar Na‘īmuddīn Murādābādī), says: “The Prophet appears from the species of man and is a human [but] is neither jinn, man nor angel. These are material laws. Otherwise, being a human being started at Ādam (upon him peace) since he is the father of man, while Ḥuḍūr (upon him peace) was a prophet at the very time that Ādam was between water and clay. He himself said: ‘I was a prophet while Ādam was between water and clay.’ At this time Ḥuḍūr was a prophet not a human being.” (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, Na‘īmī Kutub Khānah, p.173)

Note: He is arguing from this ḥadīth that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) existed in his true form before Ādam (‘alayhissalām) was created. But the correct meaning of this ḥadīth (the correct wording of which is, “I was a Prophet while Ādam was between spirit and body”) is, as explained by al-Ṭaḥāwī, that Allāh had sent a written decree confirming his prophethood at this time. (Sharḥ Mushkil al-Athār, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 15:234)

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: The Prophet Said he is a “Human Like You” just as a Hunter Imitates his Prey!

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī says about the verse of Qur’ān: “Say: I am only a man like you” (18:110): “The address in this verse is towards the Kuffār. Since each thing repels a foreign species, therefore it was said: ‘O Kuffār, don’t fear me, I am from your species, I am a human being.’ A hunter produces the sound of animals to hunt. The aim of this is to draw the Kuffār towards him. If Deobandīs are also from the Kuffār, this address may also be towards them.” (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, p.176)

Here, Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī compares the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) to a hunter pretending to be something he is not so as to catch prey! Is this not disrespect? Is this not accusing the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) – na‘ūdhu billāh – of deception?

His point is all the more flawed from the perspective that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said, “I am a man like you” (innamā ana basharun mithlukum) to the ṣaḥābah – the most elite of Muslims. According to the Muwaṭṭa’ of Imām Mālik in the transmission of Abū Muṣ‘ab al-Zuhrī (Mu’assasat al-Risālah, no. 2877), Umm Salamah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) narrated from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: “I am only a human being like you. Indeed, you argue before me and one of you may be more expressive in his argumentation than the other, so I will decree in his favour according to what I hear from him…”

Ibn Mas‘ūd (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) transmitted from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: “I am a man like you, I forget like you forget.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Maktabat al-Bushrā, no. 1282) Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydillāh (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) transmitted from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: “I am a man like you, and [my] speculation may be incorrect or correct.” (Sunan Ibn Mājah, Dār al-Risālat al-‘Alamiyyah, no. 2470)

In all of these instances, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said “I am a man like you” to his believing companions.

Na‘īmī’s take on the verse is thus an example of tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y (misinterpreting the Qur’ān based on personal judgement), an activity strongly condemned in ḥadīth, and something that betrays the falseness of Barelwī claims to orthodoxy and adhering to tradition.

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: “Say: I am a Man Like You” is from the Mutashābihāt!

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī further says: “Just as ‘Allāh’s hand is above their hands’ or ‘the likeness of His light is like a niche…’ and other verses which are found to apparently be against divine nature and are from the mutashābihāt (unclear verses), in the same way innamā ana basharun mithlukum and other verses which are apparently against the status of the Chosen One are from the mutashābihāt. Thus, to adhere to their outward as evidence is wrong.” (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, p. 178)

This is a further example of Barelwī literature drawing a false analogy between the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Allāh.

Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Rashīd Rizvī: The Prophet was Light that Appeared in Human Garb

Barelwī, Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Rashīd Rizvī, says: “Ḥuḍūr Raḥmatun lil ‘Ālamīn was in reality and in origin light. For the guidance of human beings, to present an example worthy of imitation before people, his light was made to appear in the form of a human being. When the light was made to appear in human garb, he remains a light despite being affected by human attributes, and his reality and origin is not negated. Several accounts of such are found in Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. Thus in a pure ḥadīth it is narrated that the angel of death came to Mūsā (upon him peace) so Mūsā struck the eye of the angel and gouged it out. Jibrīl Amīn is light yet to grant Sayyidah Maryam (Allāh be pleased with her) a child he came in the garb of a human being. Despite this, he remained a light.” (Rushd al-Īmān, Maktabah Rushd al-Īmān, p. 45)


In correct Islāmic/Sunnī belief the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is from the species of man and did not just appear as a man. In the Barelwī belief described above, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is only a man in as much as Jibrīl (‘alayhissalām) was “a man” i.e. in mere appearance, not in reality. This belief amounts to denying the reality of the Prophet’s humanity, and is thus disbelief and diminishment of the lofty status of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). (Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, 1:57)

Will Barelwīs who pretend to be neutral, objective Sunnīs (like the liar Asrar Rashid) denounce this unIslāmic, repugnant and blasphemous belief?

What this example (and others like it) illustrate is that Deobandī ‘Ulamā’ were true defenders of the correct, orthodox Islāmic creed, while Barelwīs were innovators and distorters of Sunnī belief. Barelwīs are the ones who in truth are guilty of heresy while they casually and unjustifiably throw around accusations of heresy at those undeserving of it. It may even be that their deviance is a punishment for their unfounded attacks of righteous ‘Ulamā’ and Awliyā’.


Abaqat of Shah Isma’il Shahid – Arabic

October 16, 2018

Several posts were written previously refuting allegations against Shah Isma’il Shahid of having Wahhabi tendencies, as well as other allegations made against him.

See, for example:








In the first of these refutations, a reference was made to the Urdu translation of Shah Isma’il’s work, ‘Abaqat, in which he negated the belief that Allah (SWT) has a direction. The original Arabic of Abaqat has now been made available on PDF:


The passages referred to in the post are found in this Arabic edition as follows:

ولا يشك عاقل من الملئين  وغيرهم في أن الوجود الإمكاني إذا قيس في جنب الوجود الواجبي يصير هباء منثورا إذ كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه، وإن الواجب يتصرف فى الممكن بمحض العلم والإرادة لا بالمباشرة والآلات، وإنه إن شاء أبطل جوهر العالم وأفناه إفناء مطلقا بحيث يصير معدوما مطلقا، وإنه لا يتصف بالنسبة إلى الممكنات  بكونه في جهة ما ولا بالقرب والبعد المكانيين ولا بالاتصال والانفصال، ولا يتصور بينهما مسافة لا متناهية ولا غير متناهية

“No sane person from the two groups or others will doubt that the possible existent when compared to the Necessary Existent is like scattered dust, since everything will perish besides His countenance; and that the Necessary Being intervenes in the possible existence by mere knowledge and will not by physical interaction and instruments; and that if He wanted He would eradicate the essence of the universe and make it disappear such that it becomes completely nonexistent; and that He is not characterised as being, in relation to possible existents, in a particular direction, nor as being distant or near in terms of place, nor as being physically joined or separated; nor is a distance between them, whether finite or infinite, conceivable.” (Abaqat, p. 35)

وبه ثبت للاهوت أنه موجود فى الخارج ليس في جهة ولا مكان ولا متصل ولا منفصل منزه عن تجدد الصفات كالعلم والإرادات دائم العناية والتأثير فى العالم

“Thus it is established that the Divine exists external [to the mind], not in a direction, nor place, nor physically joined or separated…” (Abaqat, p. 102)

In ‘Abaqat, Shah Isma’il mentions the Ash’aris and Maturidis as being from the Ahl al-Haqq (adherents of truth). He writes:

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

“Divergence and disagreement has occurred in every field. It is of two kinds. One is divergence between those who are wrong and those who are right, like the divergence between jurists of the Shi’ah and of Ahl al-Sunnah; and between Ash’aris and Mu’tazila; or between the heretical Wujudis and the learned Wujudis, or between those who use wine and intoxicants in their meditations and those who use litanies and prayer, or between those who treat the vanity of the heart by abandoning the main features of Shari’ah and those who treat it by giving attention towards sins and falling short in good deeds – you can find similar examples. The rule on such divergence is the necessity of calling one group specifically correct and calling the other incorrect similarly. Another kind of divergence is amongst adherents of truth like the divergence between the four imams or between the Ash’aris and Maturidis or between the Wara’i Wujudis and the Zilli Shuhudis, or between the adherents of the different Tariqas. The rule on this is that each of them are on a right road in most issues, and each have a direction to which they turn, so compete with each other in virtues. Whoever follows any one of them will succeed in attaining the goal.” (Abaqat, p. 174)

Shah Isma’il also mentions that his main source of guidance is the teachings of his uncles (i.e. Shah Abdul Aziz, Shah Abdul Qadir and Shah Rafiuddin). (Abaqat, p. 3)

Given the above, and that Shah Isma’il was a Sufi-philosopher, and given his location and history, it is nonsensical to say Shah Isma’il was a “Wahhabi”. Yet, Barelwis continue to make this slander and false accusation because to them facts don’t matter as much as what the “grand-master” of takfir and deception, Ahmad Rida Khan, claimed.

It should be noted such slanders against Shah Isma’il predate the lying dajjal Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi. One such allegation was that the Arabic work of Shah Isma’il Shahid, Radd al-Ishrak, from which the Urdu Taqwiyat al-Iman derives, was a translation or summary of Kitab al-Tawhid of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. As Mawlana Nurul Hasan Rashidi shows in a detailed academic research on Radd al-Ishrak and Taqwiyat al-Iman, there are several genuine manuscripts of Radd al-Ishrak available, but in one fabricated copy a fabricator changed the contents of Radd al-Ishrak and reworded it to make it appear to be a summary of Kitab al-Tawhid of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Then based on this fabrication some claimed Shah Isma’il’s Radd al-Ishrak/Taqwiyat al-Iman are based on Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Kitab al-Tawhid!

Note: A PDF of the genuine Radd al-Ishrak is available:


Uthman Nabulusi, a student of Sa’id Fuda in Jordan and author of a work refuting mistaken Wahhabi conceptions on “Tawhid”, commented after reading Shah Isma’il’s introduction to the above work (Radd al-Ishrak):

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

“This introduction is completely unproblematic, and there is a massive difference between what he said and what Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab said.”

Shah Isma’il himself clarified that in some parts of Taqwiyat al-Iman he used the term “shirk” not literally (as Wahhabis did), but to refer to practices associated with shirk. This is discussed in an earlier post:


Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: The Meaning of Ḥāḍir Nāẓir

April 22, 2020

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī (1906 – 1971), a very well-known and accepted Barelwī scholar (and student of famous Barelwī scholar Na‘īmuddīn Murādābādī; and someone who had met Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī), writes:

The legal meaning of Ḥāḍir Nāẓir in the universe is that one with spiritual strength, while remaining in one place, sees the entire universe just like he sees his hand and palm, and hears sounds near and far; or at one moment, traverses the whole world and at great distances fulfils the needs of those with needs – whether this action is purely with the soul or with a bodily image or with the very body that is buried in the grave or is present at any place; there is proof of all meanings for the seniors of Dīn from Qur’ān, Ḥadīth and statements of the ‘Ulamā’. (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, p138-9)

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī: The Prophet has Encompassing Hearing

April 22, 2020

Explaining how the ḥadīth specifying the Prophet’s hearing of ṣalawāt to it being recited at the grave can be reconciled with his belief in the Prophet having total hearing from near or far, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī says:

“There is the possibility that he said this before being given all-encompassing hearing.” (Inbā’ al-Ḥayy, p456)

Referring to some ḥadīths mentioning the extraordinary hearing of angels, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī says:

Since this is the case with the Prophet’s (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) servants and slaves – they hear continuously, always, from a distance of thousands of years – what do you think of the Prophet?! Whatever control or power another has, that was only from the aid and assistance of the Prophet, and was a bestowal and granting of the Prophet.” (Inbā’ al-Ḥayy, p469)