Question:
Do you believe that the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is equal to the knowledge of Zayd, Bakr and beasts or are you innocent of such [a belief]? Did Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi write such content in his treatise Hifz al-Iman or not? How do you judge one who believes this?
Answer:
I say: this too is from the inventions and lies of the innovators. They distorted the meaning of the statement and, in their hatred, they produced the opposite of what the shaykh (Allah lengthen his shadow) intended (Allah confound them! How they are perverted!).
Shaykh ‘Allamah al-Thanawi in his treatise called Hifz al-Iman, which is a small treatise in which he answered three questions he was asked: the first is in regards to the prostration of respect (al-sajdat al-ta’zimiyyah) to graves, the second is in regards to circumambulation (tawaf) around graves and the third is in regards to the unqualified usage of the term ‘alim al-ghayb (Knower of the Unseen) for our master, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace); the shaykh said, the upshot of which is:
This usage is not permissible even if it was with a [particular] interpretation, because it conceives of shirk, just as the usage of their statement ra’ina was prohibited in the Qur’an (2:104)[1] and their statement “my male slave” (‘abdi) and “my female slave” (amati) [was prohibited] in the hadith, as transmitted by Muslim in his Sahih (Kitab al-Alfaz min al-Adab wa Ghayriha); since the general [usage of the term] ghayb in the legal usages is that for which no proof was erected and there is no means or path to its perception. [Based] on this, Allah (Exalted is He) said, “Say: None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows the ghayb” (27:65), “Had I knowledge of the ghayb, I should have abundance of wealth” (7:188) and other verses. If this were allowed by interpretation, it would entail that it would be correct to use khaliq (Creator), raziq (Sustainer), malik (Master), ma’bud (Deity) and other attributes of Allah (Exalted is He), exclusive to His (Exalted is He) Essence, for the creation by an interpretation. It would also imply that by another interpretation the use of the term ‘alim al ghayb would be negated from Allah (Exalted is He), since He (Exalted is He) is not the knower of ghayb by means of a medium or by accident, so would any sane religious person allow its negation [from Him]? Far be it, of course not.
Moreover, if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will ask for clarification from him: what does he mean by this ghayb? Does he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of it, whichever part it may be? If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts,[2] because every one of them knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden from him. Hence, if the questioner permits the usage [of the term] ‘alim al ghayb for one because of his knowledge of a part of the ghayb, it would be necessary for him to allow its usage for all those mentioned, and if that was the case, it would not then be from the perfections of prophethood because they all share in it; and if it is not the case, he will be asked for a distinction, and will find no path to it.[3] [Here] ends the statement of Shaykh al-Thanawi.
So look, Allah have mercy on you, at the statement of the shaykh. You will not find even a trace of what the innovators invented. How farfetched for any Muslim to claim that the knowledge of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is equal to the knowledge of Zayd, Bakr and beasts. Rather, the shaykh ruled by way of implication that one who claimed the permissibility of using knowledge of the ghayb for Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) due to his knowledge of part of the ghayb, that it would be necessary for him to allow its usage for all men and beasts. How far this is from the equivalence of knowledge, which they fabricated about him! Allah’s curse be on the liars.
We are convinced that any who believes that the knowledge of the Prophet (upon him be peace) is equal to [the knowledge of] Zayd, Bakr, beasts and madmen, is an absolute disbeliever. Far be it that the shaykh (his glory continue!) say such [a thing], and this would indeed be a strange thing.
Al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad ya’ni ‘Aqa’id ‘Ulama Ahl al-Sunnah Deoband, pp. 61-64
Barelwis: A Critical Review 
“If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts,[2]” ……. This statement itself gives believers (momineen) enough proof about the Munafiqiyyat of Thanwai, where he says there is not speciality of Sarkar do Alam Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Alehi Wa Sallam possessing part of Ilm bestowed by Allah Azzawajal exclusively to him as established by Quran.
Why are you misquoting? Quote the complete passage of Shaykh Thanvi (May Allah be pleased with him). This is the complete passage:
“If according to the statement of Zayd, it is valid to apply the ruling of the knowledge of ghayb to his holy essence (meaning, calling the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) “knower of the ghayb” and unqualifiedly using “knower of the ghayb” for his holy essence), then he (i.e. this Zayd) will be asked: “From this ruling, is the ‘ghayb’ (meaning, the ghayb which occurs in the title “knower of the ghayb” because of which he refers to the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as “knower of the ghayb”) intended as some ghayb or full ghayb?”
(Here Hazrat Mawlana asked this person who called the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) “knower of the ghayb” and believed it to be permissible, whose hypothetical name is Zayd, that based on what consideration do you refer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as “knower of the ghayb”? Is it because the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has some knowledge of ghayb? Or is it because he has full knowledge of ghayb?)
If some knowledge of ghayb is intended (meaning, because of some knowledge of ghayb, you called the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) “knower of the ghayb”, and your principle is that whoever has some knowledge of ghayb you refer to him as “knower of the ghayb”), what distinction is there in this (meaning, in mere knowledge of some ghayb because of which someone is referred to as “knower of the ghayb”) for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)? Such (partial) knowledge of the ghayb (because of which you believe it is necessary to call someone “knower of the ghayb,” meaning, generally some knowledge of the unseen) is available to Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather even all animals and quadrupeds; because every person has knowledge of such and such a matter which is hidden from a second person; then all should be called “knower of the ghayb” (based on your principle that because of mere knowledge of some ghayb, a person may be called “knower of the ghayb”).”
Read this complete passage and iscuss what is its meaning
Read the post. “Part of the ghayb” refers to the terminology of “ilm al-ghayb” and ascribing this term to a person. Because, when you claim ghayb is something which is hidden from another person, everything is somehow hidden for a person for another. So saying that the Prophet has “ilm al-ghayb” is not an exclusive, unique ascription for him anymore.
{{SHAIKH THANVI: If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts,[2] because every one of them knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden from him. }}
In an attempt to save Tawheed Shaikh Thanvi missed the point that the ilm-e-Ghaib of a Nabi and a madman can not be equal. Note also the word ATTAINABLE, the one calling the Prophet Aalim-ul-Ghaib is based on some evidence of the ilm-e-ghaib given to Prophet (saws) which is also supported by the Quranic verse informing that Allah (swt) did give some Ilm-e-ghaib to his chosen ones. Whereas Shaikh Thaniv seemed to be comparing some knowledge possessed by an individual including beasts, say, about what he had done or what he carried with him/it, etc etc. Thus this knowledge specific to an individual and not known to others had been termed as GHAIB by Shaikh Thanvi and which he saw as ATTAINABLE. Barelvis call Prophet (saws) Aalim-ul-Ghaib based on the verse informing about the granted knowledge and the evidence of it available in numerous ahadees. But Shaikh Thaniv is talking about the ATTAINABLE ilm-e-ghaib of mad men & beasts equivalent to the granted knowledge of Prophet (saws) and see no distinction between them based on the verses talking about Allah (swt) is the only Aalim-ul-Ghaib. Thus in an attempt to safeguard the divinity of Allah (swt) Shaikh Thanvi missed the point.
{{SHAIKH THANVI : Hence, if the questioner permits the usage [of the term] ‘alim al ghayb for one because of his knowledge of a part of the ghayb, it would be necessary for him to allow its usage for all those mentioned, and if that was the case, it would not then be from the perfections of prophethood because they all share in it; and if it is not the case, he will be asked for a distinction, and will find no path to it.[3] [Here] ends the statement of Shaykh al-Thanawi.}}
Again Shaikh Thanvi thinks that ilm-e-ghaib attained by Kasb or by virtue of an individual’s some ability to acquire it, is equivalent to the ilm-e-ghaib of Prophet (saws) GRANTED BY ALLAH (SWT). This can hold true if Barelvis believe that the knowledge of a Prophet is attained by the Prophet in a similar fashion as done by the mad men & beasts etc etc.
Ahmed Raza is a Shia follower his grand pa is Shiya only to follow shiaism he created so many things like ( Milad, Gyarveen Barveen, Qabr Ziarath i.e Asking help from grave he his Pakka Kafir badmash shiya follwer and in his whole life he used slangs on ahle Ilm and Ulmae Haq He not even leave Sahaba RA, Shame on his life I shocked that when Innocent people tell he is hero of Ahle Sunnath no never hi is a Villain in Islam
get your facts right – Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmed Raza wrote 5 great books in refutation of the Shias.
Reza khan is a dog and was bought by the British they have a big salute for him in the British museums. May the curse of ALLAH BE ON HIM
……..here’s all his lies……
Search WWW Search http://www.central-mosque.com
False Allegations against Deobandi Ulama: ANSWERED
The False Allegation – The Truth – Clarification
The false propaganda against and blatant fabrications about our highly acclaimed and respected Ulama of Deoband by the ignorant must be refuted at all costs. Numerous pamphlets and booklets have been written distorting the truth about and writings of our distinguished Ulama.
Among the most common pamphlets displayed is “Tabliqism – one way ticket to Hell”. “Are these Islamic Beliefs”: in one column is the ‘Deobandi Tabliqi Beliefs’ and next to it is the ‘Islamic beliefs’. However, answers to the allegations have been given in various publications. Therefore, this publication will attempt to print all the false allegations and the correct views.
The False Allegation
Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, a founder of Deobandi Movement has the following beliefs:
1. The Almighty Allah can speak a lie. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 20)
2. Allah has already spoken a lie (Taqseedul Qadeer pg. 79).
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Saheb is that Allah is far above and pure from being attributed with falsehood. There is no blemish of falsehood in His words at all for Allah says, ‘Who is more truthful than Allah in speech.’ He who believes that Allah speaks a lie is an accursed outright Kaafir and opposed to the Qurãn and Sunnah. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 3)
Clarification (I)
Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 84: ‘From servant Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, after Salaam Masnoon, you have inquired concerning the Masalah ‘Imkaane Kizb’ (possibility of falsehood). But ‘Imkaane Kizb’ in the sense that Allah Taãla has the power to act contrary to what He has ordered, but will not to do with His Free Will, is the belief of this servant. The Qurãn Shareef and the Sahih Ahaadith bear testimony to this belief, and this is the belief of all the Ulama of the Ummah too. For example, Firáwn is promised to be thrown into Hell, but Allah Taãla has the power to enter him into paradise, although He will never give him paradise. And this is the Masalah under discussion at the moment. This is the belief of all my friends. The enemies must have related it differently. Referring to this Power and the non-occurrence of it is termed ‘Imkaane Zaati’ and ‘Mumtana bi Ghayr’ Was salaam Rashid Ahmad Gangohi.
Look, how they lay waiting with vicious, malicious attempts to defame this noble personality. If it is not slander then what is it?
To distort the above mentioned Masalah and refer it to Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Saheb is totally evil and wrong. It is a slander and slander is worse than back-biting,
Clarification (II)
Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 90: ‘That person who believes or utters with the tongue concerning Allah Taãla that “He spoke a lie”, is positively a Kaafir, an accursed and opposed to the Qurãn, Hadith and the unanimity of the Ummah. He is definitely not a Mu’min. Taãlallaahu ammaa yaqoolu dhaalimoona oluwwan kabeeraa. (Allah is far above from what the transgressors are saying).’
The misrepresenter, besides being involved with misrepresentation, has earned the wrath of Allah. Let the Hadith of the Master of the Green Dome once again ring in his ears. ‘A person does not target another with impiety or a person does not target another with Kufr, but it returns to the former if the latter is not guilty of it.’ (Bukhari)
Taqdeesul Qadeer is not compiled by the Ulama of Deoband. In fact there is no such Kitaab by this name.
False Allegation
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is not the only Rahmatullil Aalameen. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 19)
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is that: ”One should know that the attribute of being Omnipresent is the quality of Allah Taãla alone, like All-Knowing, Creator of the Skies and Earths and so forth. Therefore to attribute this quality of being Omnipresent to someone else, though it be a ‘Nabi’, ‘Wali’, or Saint, is to ascribe Partners to Allah in His Qualities, which is termed as ‘Shirk-fis-Sifaat.”
Clarification
The word ‘Rahmatullil Aalameen’ is not a characteristic only of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). In fact other Awliyaa, Ambiyaa and Ulamaa-e-Rabbaniyyeena are also a means of mercy unto the world, although Rasululla (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is the highest of them all. Therefore, if it is used for others with ‘Taaweel’ (by elucidation) it is permissible.’ (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 96/97)
False Allegation
To lecture on or discuss the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Imaam Hussayn (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) is Haraam even if the stories are true. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 3 pg. 113)
Clarification
The incident of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussayn (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) who sacrificed his life for the sake of Truth, is surely very important. But the method adopted, like beating the chest, tearing the garment, pulling the hair, slapping the face, shouting slogans of ‘Yaa Hussayn, Yaa Hussayn’ and taking out processions to parade in the streets, is what Hadhrat Moulana has stopped and said is Haraam.’
The reason for stopping this is that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) has forbidden the slapping of faces and the tearing of garments.
Therefore to lecture on or discuss the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Hussayn in the abovementioned fashion, with that type of pomp and show, is forbidden in the light of the Hadith. (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 104/105)
False Allegation
In the month of Muharram, providing free water and feeding people with milk or Sharbat is Haraam. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 3 pg. 113)
Clarification
To feed the poor and needy and to distribute water free to quench their thirst as ‘Isaale Sawaab’ is no sin. Neither did Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi nor anyone else say it is Haraam.
The Barelvis belief is this, that on the plains of Karbala the martyrs sacrificed their life in thirst. Therefore, the water that is given here as a drink, reaches them.
It is common sense, that this water does not reach them, nor are they in need of it. They are in Jannat. If the whole idea is to convey the reward (Isaale Sawaab), the whole year is available for that. No question arises then whether to make ‘Isaale Sawaab’ or not. The practice mentioned above similitudes the practices of the Rawaafidh; therefore it is Haraam.’ (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 147/148)
False Allegation
Ashraf Ali Thanvi, a founder member of Deoband says: ‘The Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) has an education like that of children, lunatics and animals of every category.’ (Hifzul Imaan pg. 7)
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is that: Hadhrat Moulana was asked, ‘Did you in Hifzul Imaan or any other book write anything directly or indirectly comparing the education of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) to that of children, lunatics and animals? If not then what is your ruling regarding a person who holds such a belief?’ In reply to that Moulana states, ‘Let alone writing such falsehood and filth, my heart had never even perceived such falsehood and verily if anyone holds such a belief he is out of the fold of Islam.’ (Faisal-e-Khusoomat pg. 21)
Clarification
Hadhrat Hakimul Ummah, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (author of the famous ‘Bahishti Zewar’) did not write the abovementioned statement in Hifzul Imaan. Nor is it his belief. It is a slander on the said Moulana. In fact Hadhrat Moulana has stated clearly in ‘Hifzul Imaan’ that, ‘Knowledge with regard to the Excellence of Prophethood has been bestowed totally upon Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) (Hifzul Imaan pg. 12)
False Allegation
Prophets are not free from sins. (Tasfiyatul Aqaaid pg. 24 – Cassim Nanotwi, a founder of Deoband)
Clarification
The topic under discussion in ‘Tasfiyatul Aqaaid’ was this: It was mentioned in the Hadith, in Shaf’at that on the plain of resurrection people will gather with great fear, perturbed and disturbed. They will go to Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) and request him to intercede on their behalf in front of Allah Taãla. Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) will refuse and say that it is beyond his influence, because of the incident that he ate from the tree of Jannah which was forbidden to him. Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) will say, ‘Today Allah’s wrath is so great that His anger was never great before and will never be so great after’ (though Allah Taãla has forgiven him). He will advise them to go to Hadhrat Nuh (Álayhis salaam). In this way people will flock to the other Ambiyaa (Álayhimus salaam). Each one will be fearful and reluctant, for some reason or the other to intercede on behalf of man. At the end when the people will come to Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam), Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) will say, ‘Very well, I will intercede on your behalf. I will take permission from my Sustainer and He will grant me that permission.’
Hadhrat Moulana wrote that, which was mentioned in the Hadith and not that, ‘Prophets (Álayhimus salaam) are not free from sins,’ as mentioned in the said leaflet.
False Allegation
Shaytaan has more education than our Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). (Barahine Qatia pg. 51 – Khalil Ahmad Ambhetwi)
The Truth
We strongly believe and openly claim that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) was given more knowledge than the entire creation of Allah and it is our belief that whosoever says that anyone has more knowledge than Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) then such a person is a Kaafir. Our great Úlama have already given a Fatwa of Kufr upon a person who says Shaytaan has more knowledge than Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) then how could I ever have written such a thing. (Al Muhnad Allal Mufannad Q&A 18-19)
Clarification
It is totally incorrect. This sentence is not written anywhere in ‘Baraahine Qaati’ah’, that ‘Shaytaan has more knowledge than Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam).’
Moulana Khalil Ahmad (RA) was asked whether he wrote such a statement or not? He replied, ‘I did not write such a statement anywhere. It is an open slander on me. On the day of Qiyaamat account will be taken with Ahmad Raza Khan.’
False Allegation
To read Alhamdu Fateha before eating food is Bidat (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 150)
Clarification
In order to establish anything in Islam, it is necessary that it be verified in the light of the Shariáh. Unless it is not proven by the Shariáh, it cannot be regarded as Deen. Yes, one may call it a matter of convenience. For example, the use of an electric fan, motor vehicle, etc. The moment a person wants to make it part and parcel of Deen, immediately it will need verification from the Shariáh, whether it be Meelaad, Fateha, Giyaarwi, Urs, Dua-e-Thani, Dua immediately after Janaaza prayer or any other ritual for that matter. And on failing to be verified, it will be regarded as Bidat – innovation. The wickedness of being involved in Bidat is that the Sunnats are automatically left out. As darkness spreads, light vanishes.
To read Al-Hamd, Fateha before eating food is not verified and proven in the Shariáh, therefore, it is a Bidat.
Regarding Bidat, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) has decreed:
1. “He who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” (Bukhari)
2. “Beware of newly-invented matters! For every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is leading astray and every leading astray is in Hell-Fire.” (Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi)
The ‘Masnoon’ Duas read by Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) before meals and after meals, should surely be read. Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi (RA) did not stop anyone from this.
False Allegation
We cannot make Nikah with any person who takes part in Urs, etc. (Fataawa Rashidiya part 2 pg. 142)
The Truth
Moulana Rashid Ahmed says in Fataawa Rashidiya, “Taking part in Urs is not an act of Kufr therefore Nikah with a person who takes part in Urs is valid.”
Clarification
Those who go to the Urs and make Sajdah (prostrate) to the graves, pray for boon or ask for a favour from the inmates of the graves, and make Tawaaf of the graves; to solemnise marriages with them will inculcate these Shirk practices in them and others as well. Therefore, unless they don’t make Tawbah and refrain from such Shirk practices, Nikah is not allowed until then.
False Allegation
Giyaarwi Shareef is Haraam and Kufr, even if Qur’an is read. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 95)
Clarification
Anything in the name of ‘Ghayrullah’ (someone other than Allah), whether it be Giyarwi Shareef’ or ‘Baarwi’, is Haraam. This Masalah is found in Shaami, Tahtaawi, Bahrur Raaiq and in many other Kitaabs.
On the other hand, Esaale Sawaab is permissible. No one prohibited Esaale Sawaab provided it is done without specifications of time, place and invitation. But look at the beliefs of these people. They have this belief that the distribution of sustenance is entrusted to Peerane Peer (RA). If the Giyaarwi is held back, he will stop the food.
False Allegation
It is Sawaab to eat crows (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 130)
Clarification:
Crows are of three types: The first type is that which feeds only on grain. It is exactly like a wild pigeon. It is Halaal according to all Jurists. The second type is that which only feeds on excreta, and prey on other animals. It is exactly like a vulture. It is Haraam according to all Jurists. The third type is that which feeds on grain, eats excreta and it catches and eats mice as well. It is like an uncaged fowl, which feeds on grain, worms and even on mice.
Hadhrat Moulana wrote concerning this third type of crow that it is not Haraam. This Masalah of the crow is found in Hidaaya, Durre Mukhtaar, Fataawa Aalamghiri, as well as the other ‘Kitaabs’ of Fiqh (Jurisprudence).
Therefore, should anyone not eat a crow or a fowl for the rest of his life, there is no criticism and blame on him according to the Shariáh. Yes, if he takes it to be Haraam then he will be answerable. Thus whosoever takes it to beHaraam, in order to correct his belief it is a ‘Sawaab’ and reward to eat it.’ (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 492 Rahimia print)
False Allegation
Almighty Allah Taãla is not always ‘all knowing’. He finds out whenever necessary. (Taqwiyatul Eemaan pg. 26).
Clarification
This is an open Calumny and a False Accusation. This sentence is not written at all in ‘Tawiyatul Eemaan’ that ‘Allah Taãla is not always “all knowing”. He finds out when necessary.
False Allegation
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) will die and become sand one day. (Taqwiyatul Imaan pg. 69)
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmed Saheb is that: The meaning of the (phrase) ‘to lie on sand’ has two meanings. The one is to become soil, the other is the body touches the sand. The latter meaning is meant, and the
Moulana (author of Taqwiyatul Imaan) also believes that the bodies of the Anbiyaa (Álayhimus salaam) do not turn to dust. Because a deceased is buried in a grave and he is surrounded with soil all over, his body together with the ‘Kafn’ touches the sand beneath him is called ‘Mitti me milnaa’ – to lie on sand. Hence, there is no point of objection. (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg.s 83/84)
Clarification
In Taqwiyatul Imaan, a Hadith is mentioned in which a Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) told Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) that the people of other places bow out of respect to their Rulers; whereas Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is more worthy of being bowed to. At this, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, ‘Look if you happen to pass by my grave, will you bow to it?’ The Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) said ‘No, I will not do so.’ On this, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, ‘So do not bow to me …’ (A Sajdah Taazimi is also forbidden).
Commentary: ‘I will also die one day and lie on sand (buried); therefore am I worthy to be prostated to?’ This phrase ‘Mitti me milne waalaa hoo – I will lie on sand’ (meaning to be buried one day), became the bone of contention for the Barelvis.
False Allegation
To think of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) in Salaat is worse than thinking of cows and donkeys. (Siraate Mustaqeem pg. 150)
Clarification
The abovementioned statement is not found anywhere in ‘Siraate Mustaqeem’ that, ‘To think of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) in Salaat is worse than thinking of cows and donkeys.’
That which was written in ‘Sarfe Himmat’. This is terminology used by the Sufis in Tasawwuf (the spiritual field). ‘Sarfe Himmat’ in ‘Tasawwuf’ means that a person’s meditation over a thing becomes so overpowering and predominant that no other thoughts penetrate into the mind and soul. Like a mirror, if a person does not want any person’s reflection to come into it, he covers it with a black cloth and thus no reflection will appear. To contemplate over a figure so that no other thing is contemplated is called ‘Sarfe Himmat’.
This has been forbidden in Salaat, that besides Allah, ‘Sarfe Himmat’ should not be done towards anyone. Salaat should purely and solely be for Allah alone. If ‘Sarfe Himmat’ is done towards Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam), then the entire Salaat and Ibaadat will be for him.
On the other hand, if any thoughts of cows, donkeys, business, etc. come to mind, or a person gets drowned in these thoughts whilst in Salaat, it is regrettable. There is no fear of it being worshipped. In fact the person regrets that in the course of an esteem Ibaadat like Salaat, he should have such thoughts, Astaghfirullah.
The Kitaab, ‘Siraate Mustaqeem’ is based on ‘Tasawwuf’. The objector is not versed in Tasawwuf’. Therefore, he has translated ‘Sarfe Himmat’ to mean a mere thought.
What comes to mind is this; that the Objector presents a picture of a Grade One child, learning to read and write ABC and wishing to interpret the writings of Shakespeare.
Moreover, it is stated in the Hadith that Salaat should be performed with full attention. Therefore, when the name of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is recited in ‘Tashahhud’ the thought of the Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) will come and should come. The Salaat will not be rendered incorrect and this is not unlawful at all. The respected Moulana did not stop anyone from this.
The End
Article taken (with Thanks) from Islam.tc
This site requires:- Macromedia’s Flash 7 Player & 1024×768 Screen Resolution Copyright © 2005-2006 Central-Mosque All rights reserved. Comments and suggestions to webmaster@central-mosque.com
Objectively it is clear that there is a genuine basis of complaint here – based on the wording in this article.
The way the point is made by the shaikh would not be acceptable to most people in everyday situations where their loved ones were concerned, so it should be easy to see why it is unacceptable in relation to RasulAllah SAW.
And reading the sentence I can’t see any reason why the offending words need to be there. They add nothing to the point the Shaikhs was making.
The way we say things convey a message and it is the job for scholars to be especially careful.