Ml. Gangohi and the Fabricated Fatwa of Raza Khan

January 23, 2012


Did the eminent shaykh, the scholar of his time, Mawlawi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, say that the Creator (Exalted is He) has actually lied, and that the one who says this has not erred, or is this amongst the fabrications against him? Assuming the latter, how do you respond to what Al-Barelwi (Ahmad Rida Khan) mentioned that he has with him a photocopy of the respected shaykh’s fatwa?


That which they attributed to the eminent and incomparable shaykh, the scholar of his time, the peerless of his age, Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, that he said that the Creator (Exalted is His Eminence) actually lied and that the one who says this has not erred, it is a fabrication about him (Allah Most High have mercy on him) and is from the lies concocted by the deceptive and lying devils (Allah confound them! How they are perverted!). His respected person is innocent of such heresy and disbelief. The fatwa of the shaykh that was printed and published in volume one of his Fatawa Rashidiyyah (p. 119) falsifies their [claim]. It is in Arabic and was verified and stamped with the seals of the ‘ulama of Makkah al-Mukarramah. A copy of this question [and answer] follows:

In Allah’s Name, the Ever Merciful, the Beneficent. We praise Him and send blessing on His noble Messenger. What is your view (your blessings last!) on Allah being described with the attribute of falsehood? And what is the ruling on the one who believes He lies? Provide us with an answer, and be rewarded.


Allah (Exalted is He) is certainly transcendent beyond being described with falsehood, and no element of falsehood is found in His Speech, as Allah says, “Who is more truthful than Allah in speech?” (4:122) Whoever believes or professes that Allah lies, he is certainly an accursed disbeliever, and has opposed the Book, the Sunna and the Consensus of the Ummah.

Yes, the belief of the people of faith is: that which Allah foretold in the Qur’an, that Pharaoh, Haman and Abu Lahab are from the inhabitants of Hell, it is a decisive decision that He will not act contrary to, but Allah (Exalted is He) is Able to admit them into Paradise and is not incapable of this, but He will not do so by His choice.

Allah (Exalted is He!) said, “And if We had so willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me concerning evildoers took effect: that I will fill the Fire with the jinn and mankind together.” (32:12). It is evident from this verse that had Allah wished, He would have made everybody believers but He does not contradict what He says, and this is all by choice, not coercion. He is a Doer by choice, acting as He wills.

This is the belief of all the ‘ulama of this Ummah, as Al-Baydawi said under the explanation of His statement (Exalted is He), “If you forgive them…” (5:118) that “the absence of forgiveness for shirk is a consequence of His threat, but it is not intrinsically impossible.” Allah knows best the truth.

The lowly Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (may he be pardoned) wrote this.

A review of the endorsements of the ‘ulama of Al-Makkah al-Mukarramah, Allah increase its honour:

“All praise to the One Who is deserving of it, and from Him extends all help and guidance. That which ‘Allamah Rashid Ahmad said in reply as cited [above] is the truth from which there is no escape. Allah send blessings and peace on the Seal of the Prophets, his family and his companions.”

The servant of the Shari’ah, seeking tender grace, Muhammad Salih ibn al-Marhum Siddiq Kamal al-Hanafi (Allah support them), the present Mufti of Al-Makkah al-Mukarramah, ordered his signature.

The one hopeful of perfect attainment from His Lord, Muhammad Sa’id ibn Muhammad Babusayl at the Protected Makkah (Allah forgive him and his parents, and his teachers and all the Muslims) signed it.

Seeking pardon from the Giver of bestowals, Muhammad ‘Abid ibn al-Marhum Shaykh Husayn, Mufti of the Malikis at the Protected Land of Allah, [signed it].

“[After] sending blessing and peace; that which ‘Allamah Rashid Ahmad answered is sufficient and upon it is dependence, rather it is the truth from which there is no escape.”

Written by the lowly one, Khulf ibn Ibrahim, a servant of ifta (answering juristic problems) for Hanbalis, at the Noble Makkah.

The response to what Al-Barelwi said that he has in his possession a copy of the fatwa of the deceased shaykh in photocopy form containing what he mentioned, it is from his inventions that he invented and forged by himself, as a slander against the shaykh (Allah sanctify his secret). Such lies and slanders are insignificant for him, for he is the teacher of teachers in this and all of them are dependent on him in his time, and indeed he is a distorting manipulator and a scheming imposter, sometimes creating outright forgeries. He is not less than the Masih al-Qadiyani, since the latter claims messengership manifestly and openly, and the former conceals [hopes of] being the mujaddid, and anathematises (yukaffiru) the ‘ulama of the Ummah, just as the Wahhabis, the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, anathematise the Ummah (Allah Most High disgrace him as He disgraces them).

Hifz al-Iman and the Lies of Ahmad Raza Khan

January 23, 2012


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?


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

Shah Isma’il considering the Prophet lower than a Shoemaker?

January 23, 2012

The third accusation Mawlana Nu’mani addresses in his book (pp. 56-69) is the accusation that Shah Isma’il considered the prophets and angels, and in particular the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), to be lower than a cobbler. A summary of his reply is as follows:

The passage this is in reference to is the following:

After quoting the verse, “when Luqman said to his son while he admonished him: O my son! do not associate aught with Allah; most surely polytheism is a grievous injustice” (31:13), Shah Isma’il stated in Taqwiyat al-Iman:

ya’ni Allah ta’ala neh Luqman ko ‘aql mandi di thi; so unho neh is se sumjha ke be insafi yehi he keh kesi ka haq kesi ko pukra dena; aur jisne Allah ka haq is ki makhluq ko diya to bure se bure ka haq zalil se zalil ko de diya; jese badshah ka taj ek chamar ke sur pur rukhe de jie is se bure be insafi kiya hogi? Aur yeh yaqin jan lena chahiye keh hurr makhluq bura ho ya chota ho woh Allah ki shan ke age chamar se bhi zalil he

Translation: “Meaning, Allah gave Luqman wisdom, so he understood that injustice is one taking the right of another, and the one who gives Allah’s right to creation, he has given the right of the greatest of greatest to the lowest of lowest, just like the one who puts the crown of a king on a cobbler. What is more unjust than this? This should be held with certainty that all creation, great or small, before the greatness of Allah, is less than even a cobbler.”

Mawlana Nu’mani first mentions that it should be noted that no prophet or saint is mentioned in this sentence nor are they mentioned as groups, rather it was made in a general way (“all creation, great or small, before the greatness of Allah, is less than even a cobbler”). He then says in many cases a summary statement and a specific statement are very different; e.g. the Qur’an says human beings are created from a despicable fluid, but although prophets are included in this statement, it would not be appropriate to specify them in this ruling.

The passage is about the great divide between the Creator and creation, not about the ranks amongst creation. The basic gist of what he said is just as a cobbler is lower than a king in greatness so it would be a great injustice to put his crown on him, all creation is much lower compared to the greatness of Allah than a cobbler is to a king; and this is undeniably true.

It is narrated in a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari that Khidr said to Musa (‘alayhi al-salam): “My knowledge and your knowledge with respect to the knowledge of Allah is not but as [much as] this sparrow took from the ocean in its beak.” Can it now be said Khidr compared the knowledge of Musa to the water a sparrow carries in its beak?

In sum, Mawlana Nu’mani says, to belittle the prophets and saints is clear disbelief, but to consider them small in relation to Allah is a requirement of faith. ‘Allamah Zurqani says precisely this in Sharh al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah on the definition of tasawwuf:

“It is stripping away the heart for Allah [alone] and considering all besides Him insignificant in relation to His greatness (Glorious is He), for otherwise belittling the like of a prophet is disbelief.”

هو تجريد القلب لله واحتقار ما سواه بالنسبة لعظمته سبحانه وإلا فإحقار نحو نبي كفر

This statement from Taqwiyat al-Iman was only to demonstrate the enormity of shirk, that it is giving what is the right of the utmost greatest being to something that is completely insignificant in comparison to Him. Mawlana Nu’mani mentions that the mistake of the innovators who throw this accusation at Shah Isma’il is twofold: 1. to not distinguish between a summary-statement (ijmali) and a detailed/specific one (tafsili); and 2. to not distinguish between insignificance in the presence of Allah and in comparison to Allah.

Next, he quotes several statements from the ‘ulama and Sufis of the past who made similar statements to that in question from Taqwiyat al-Iman. The last one he quoted is cited and translated below from Imam ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani’s Futuh al-Ghayb, and he asks, should the fatwa of kufr be placed on him as he considers all creation – from whom are the prophets and angels – as insignificant – in comparison to Allah – as a man crucified to a tree?!

“Consider all of creation like a man whose hands are tied behind his back by a sultan whose kingdom is immense, his condition is severe and his power and control is terrifying; and then he puts chains around his neck and legs, and he crucifies him to a large tree to the side of a sea which’s waves are immense, its width is vast, its depth is deep, and its flow is harsh; then the sultan sits on his stool which’s stature is immense, its firnament is high, and its reach is far; and he leaves to his side bundles of arrows and spears and various kinds of weapons and bows and from that which’s vastness is not comprehended except by him; and he begins to throw at the crucified person whatever he wishes from those weapons. Would it be regarded as praiseworthy for the one who sees this to not look to the sultan and fear him and have hope in him, and [instead] look to the one who is crucified and fear him and hope in him? Is not the one who does this called in the decree of the mind an insane and senseless madman, and an unhuman animal?” (Futuh al-Ghayb)

اجعل الخليقة أجمع كرجل كَتَّفَهُ سلطان عظيم ملكه شديد أمره, مهولة صولته وسطوته, ثم جعل الغل في رقبته ورجليه, ثم صلبه على شجرة الأرزة، على شاطىء نهر عظيم موجه, فسيح عرضه, عميق غوره, شديد جريه, ثم جلس السلطان على كرسيه, عظيم قدره, عال سماؤه, بعيد مرامه ووصوله, وترك إلى جنبه أحمالاً من السهام والرماح والنبل وأنواع السلاح والقسى ومما لا يبلغ قدرها غيره, فجعل يرمي إلى المصلوب بما شاء من ذلك السلاح, فهل يحسن لمن يرى ذلك أن يترك النظر إلى السلطان والخوف منه والرجاء له وينظر إلى المصلوب ويخاف منه ويرجوه, أليس من فعل ذلك يسمى في قضية العقل عديم العقل والحس مجنونا. بهيمة غير إنسان؟

Shah Isma’il Calling the Prophet a Brother?

January 23, 2012

Courtesy of SF:’s-Review-of-Taqwiyat-al-Iman‏&p=641668&viewfull=1#post641668

The second accusation Mawlana Nu’mani addresses in his book (pp. 40-55) is the accusation that Shah Isma’il said the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) must only be respected as an elder brother. A summary of his reply is as follows:

In religious and customary usage, there are for types of brotherhood:

1. Genealogical brotherhood (ukhuwwat nasabi) – the sons of the same man or the granchildren of the same man (i.e. cousin brothers). In the verses of inheritance (4:11,12,176) wherever “brother” or “brothers” is used, it is in this sence, and whenever Harun is called “Musa’s brother” (e.g. 7:143), it is in this sense. It is reported, ‘Ali, as the cousin of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Muhammad is my brother and my in-law, and Hamza, the master of martyrs, is my uncle.” (Muhammadun akhi wa sihri, wa Hamzatu sayyid al-shuhada ‘ammi).

2. Ethnic or national brotherhood (qawmi aur watni ukhuwwat) – people from one country or from one ethnic group. In this sense, Hud is called the “brother of ‘Ad,” (7:65) Salih the “brother of Thamud” (7:73) and Shu’ayb the “brother of Madyan” (7:85), although the majority of these communities were disbelievers.

3. Religious brotherhood (ukhuwwat dini) – practicing members of the same religion. In this sense, the Qur’an says: “The believers are but brothers” (49:10) and a hadith says “The Muslim is the brother of a Muslim” (Bukhari, Muslim). On this basis, every messenger is the brother of every member of his ummah and every member of his ummah is his brother. This is why the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said of those Muslims who would be born after his death: “I wish we saw our brothers” (wadidtu anna qad ra’ayna ikhwanana) (Sahih Muslim). And he said to ‘Umar “Do not forget us, my dear brother, in your du’a.” (la tansana ya ukhayy fi du’aik) (Abu Dawud). Also in the event of the Prophet’s (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) proposal to ‘A’ishah, Abu Bakr referred to himself as his brother, as did the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) – in the commentary of this hadith, al-‘Asqalani said “This is an allusion to Allah’s statement: The believers are but brothers.”

4. Genetic brotherhood (ukhuwwat jinsi) – all children of Adam are brothers. The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “All bonsmen (of Allah) are brothers” (al-‘ibad kulluhum ikhwah) (Abu Dawud). And in another hadith he said: “All of you are children of Adam, and Adam was created from dust.” It was reported ‘Ali said: “All men with respect to form are equal, their father is Adam and the mother Hawwa” (al-nasu min jihat al-timthal akfa; abuhum adam wa al-umm hawwa). This is the broadest level of brotherhood as it includes all human beings.

With regards to the hadith Shah Isma’il quotes in Taqwiyat al-Iman:

Ahmad transmitted from ‘A’ishah (Allah be pleased with her) that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was amongst a group of the emigrants and helpers when a camel came and prostrated to him, so his companions said: “O Messenger of Allah! Beasts and trees prostrate to you, and we are more deserving of prostrating to you.” So he said: “Worship your Lord and respect your brother.”
He considers the brotherhood here to be of the latter kind (the brotherhood of humanity) as it is contrasted with “your Lord,” so Shah Isma’il says in the first part of his commentary: “ya’ni insan sab apas meh bha’i bha’i hey” (meaning, humanity are all brothers to one another). He then says: “jo bara buzurg ho woh bara bha’i hey, uske bare bhai ki si ta’zim keyjie aur malik subka Allah hey, bundegi usko jahiye.” (the bigger rigteous person is the bigger brother, and he should be respected as a bigger brother, and Allah is Master of all, and He alone is worshipped). Notice the word for “bigger” brother is the same word used for “bigger” righteous person (bara), as “bigger” means both “elder” and “greater.” Mawlana Nu’mani says: the brotherhood meant here, as shown by the previous sentence, is brotherhood in humanity, so “bigger brother” means “greater human being,” so a more pious person should be respected as a “greater human being” i.e. and not as god.

This is precisely what Shah Isma’il goes on to say in Taqwiyat al-Iman: “is hadis se ma’lum huwa keh awliya anbiya imam zada pir wa shahid ya’ni jitne Allah ke muqarrab bende he woh sub insan hi he aur bunde ‘ajiz aur humare bhai; mugar un ko Allah ne barai di woh bare bhai hoe, hum ko un ki furmanburdari ka hukm he; hum unke chote he; so un ki ta’zim insanoh ki si kurni chahiye neh ki khuda ki si.” (from this hadith it is known that saints, prophets, imams, shaykhs, martyrs i.e. all the close servants of Allah, they are all human beings and helpless servants [of Allah] and our brother; however, those whom Allah gave greatness they are our greater (or bigger) brothers, and we are their subjects; and we are smaller than them; thus we must respect them as human beings and not as god). Mawlana Nu’mani says: It should be noted that in this passage, Shah Isma’il does not refer to anyone specifically, not the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) or another, as a “bigger brother,” but generally of all those servants that are close to Allah, they are our “bigger brothers” i.e. in humanity not genealogically (as misconstrued by his opponents). Mawlana Nu’mani then states that all the points Shah Isma’il mentioned in this passage are agreed upon:

1. All people, whether great or small, are brothers of one another [based on the hadith quoted above: “All bonsmen (of Allah) are brothers” (Abu Dawud)]
2. They are all helpless servants of Allah
3. Those whom Allah gave a greater/bigger rank they are greater/bigger brothers i.e. in humanity
4. We are their subjects, and are smaller/lesser than them
5. We must respect them as human beings not as gods

Mawlana Nu’mani also notes that the objection that is brought (e.g. by Na’im al-Din Muradabadi) that using the word “brother” is disrespectful as the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) used it out of humility, Shah Isma’il does not encourage the use of this word to address the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) or any other, but rather explains the meaning of the hadith he quoted. The discussion is not about how to address (khitab) but about explaining (bayan) that human beings ought to be respected as human beings and Allah as Allah; and there is a big difference between khitab and bayan. Muradabadi also claimed there was a contradiction between the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) being our father (as proven by some texts) and our brother; but Mawlana Nu’mani explains that both are correct in their different contexts – he is our spiritual (ruhani) father, while religiously and genetically, he is our brother [he quotes ‘Asqalani’s comment above to support this].

New Book Uploaded on Hussam al-Haramayn

January 23, 2012

The brothers at uploaded a very informative book about the fatwa of Hussam al-Haramayn. It is compiled by Ml. Husayn Ahmad Najib. The book consists mainly of three parts from three books:

1. Al-Muhannad by Ml. Khalil
2. Al-Shihab by Ml. Husayn
3. Faysala Kun by Ml. Manzur

It has an introduction by Mufti Taqi Usmani who recommended that Faysala Kun Munazara should be included in the book since the book was a comprehensive and clear (p. 10) reply to the fatwa of Ml. Ahmad Raza Khan. The book of Ml. Husayn Ahmad Madani had more background information of the fatwa, showing how Ahmad Raza mislead the scholars of haramayn and how some of them even refused to sign the fatwa!

As Mufti Taqi Usmani mentions in the end of his intrdocution, the book includes sufficient bagage for those who want to see justice.

Download link:

Khan Sahib and his Insulting Comments about Allah

January 14, 2012

Ahmad Rida Khan in his work subhan as-subuh made some crazy comparisons of what the “God of the Deobandis” could do:

“A woman is capable of committing fornication. Then according to the opinion of your leader and teacher, it is necessary that your God too should be capable of committing fornication – otherwise the prostitutes of the brothers of the Deobandi’s would laugh at Him and say: ‘How do you claim for Godhead? You are not capable of doing which even we can do?’ This naturally implies that your God must possess a female sexual organ – otherwise where will be the sexual intercourse?” (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Subhan al-Subbuh. P. 142)

“Barahin-e-Qati’a, the work of Gangohi, is DIRTIER THAN URINE, and full of unbelief. If anyone does not believe this (statement) is an atheist!” (Subhan as-Subbuh, p. 134)

Na’im al-Din Muradabadi Denying Bashariyya

January 1, 2012

In the tafsir called Khaza’in al-Irfan, Mawlana Naim al-Din Muradabadi ascribes to Shah Abdul Aziz the opinion that the existince of bashariya was no longer present in the Prophet. He says under the last verse of Surat al-Kahf:

‘aap ka bashariyat ka wujud aslan na raha, aur ghalba anware haq aap par ‘ala ad-dawam haasil ho’

“The existence of the humanness of the Prophet was not wholly present anymore”