How Barelwis Outright Lie

February 29, 2012

A good example of how Barelwis lie and distort is this Barelwi link:

A quote that I came across:

Ismail Dehlavi said, “A Deobandi Maulvi was given a bath by Hazrat Ali and his clothes were changed by Hazrat Fatimah.” (Siraat-e-Mustaqeem Urdu page 280).

Shah Isma’il died in 1831. The university of Deoband was established only in 1867. About which “Deobandi molwi” is this person talking about? Nowhere is this mentioned in the text.

The list goes on and the Barelwi fabricates quotes or brings them out of context such as “The Prophet is only respected as an elder brother/Prophets are useless”

Most of their silly points have been already refuted here:

 The Barelwi  adds, misstate, falsify, distorts and fabricates quotes endlessly. Too bad they don’t have the academic integrity to be honest in their refutations.

GF Haddad Changes his Opinion

February 29, 2012

The Fatwa below clearl shows GF Haddad refuting the Barelwi accusation about Shah Isma’il, and accepting the argument against Barelwis. Remember that according the Barelwis the statement of Shah Ismail was clear kufr (sarih), and any interpretation would lead to kufr. GF Haddad should be declared an unbeliever now by the Barelwis:


Assalamualaykum Shaykh Gibril,

The Deobandis have recently wrote answers in English to several of the accusations of error in their books, and claim Imam Ahmad Rida told lies. See the following:

What is your opinion on these answers, and are they correct and justified?


wa `alaykum salam,
Those who painstakingly gathered and translated the apologetic evidence in defense of Shah Ismail deserve credit because they have brought to light material from the sources that was unavailable before, and my feeling is they have tried to be fair in their translations. After a quick perusal of a few issues I am satisfied that on the one hand Shah Ismail is blameless on the issue of sarf al himma, but not on that of ‘mixing with the earth’ despite Mawlana Gangohi’s attempt to make it sound acceptable to use an ambiguous expression. Prophetic Attributes are tawqifi and here as elsewhere we stand with athar. Nor is Shah Ismail’s position that more Muhammads can be created other than tanqis of Prophet posing as ta’zim of Allah Most High. Those who ask for such discussions must therefore sift the chaff from the good and give each its due. In the end we repeat it is best to leave it alone, make peace, worship Allah and bless the Prophet.

Hajj Gibril Haddad



A critique to the above comment by GF Haddad:

Notice, he makes no apology for the false claims he propagated, even the one he admits where he says “I am satisfied that on the one hand Shah Ismail is blameless on the issue of sarf al himma” when previously he said: “Ismā.īl Dihlawī is also notorious for affirming in his purported Straight Path. (al-Sirāt al-Mustaqīm) apparently co-authored with his close associate Sayyid Ahmad Barelwī that becoming absorbed (s.arf-e-himmat) in the Prophet Muhammad, were it to occur during Salāt, is much worse than to become absorbed in the thought of an ox or adonkey. It goes without saying that such a statement constitutes clear disparagement of the Prophet, which is passible of death in all four Sunnī Schools.” So before he was deserving of the death penalty but now he is blameless? Why does he not admit such major distortions and errors, and acknolwedge that he based his review on biased sources which he should now accept as unreliable? Instead he brushes it off as though nothing was said or written.

Haddad says: “But not on that of ‘mixing with the earth’ despite Mawlana Gangohi’s attempt to make it sound acceptable to use an ambiguous expression. Prophetic Attributes are tawqifi and here as elsewhere we stand with athar.” To anybody with some sense, this makes no sense. The phrase “mixing with the earth” (which simply means “was buried”) was used as an explanation of a hadith; it was not said as a prophetic attribute. See this post above. On the other hand, when Gibril Haddad says the Prophet is “omnipresent” (see his article here) [while no athar states the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present in all places], his assertion “Prophetic Attributes are tawqifi and here as elsewhere we stand with athar” is clearly proven false.

He says: “Nor is Shah Ismail’s position that more Muhammads can be created other than tanqis of Prophet posing as ta’zim of Allah Most High”

Shah Isma’il doesn’t exactly say “more Muhammads can be created.” Rather, his exact words in Taqwiyat al-Iman are:

Iss Shahinshah ki to yeh shaan he keh ek aan meh ek hukm “kun” se chahe to kororoh nabi or wali or jin wa firashte jibra’il aur Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam ki barabar peda kur dale aur ek dam meh sara ‘alam ‘arsh sey farsh tuk alat pulut kur dale aur ek aur hi ‘alam is jagah qaim kureh

Translation: “The nature of this King of Kings is such that if He wished, then [merely] with the order “Be,” He can create millions of prophets, saints, jinn and angels equal to Jibra’il and Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) in one moment, and in one second He can turn upside-down the entire creation from the Throne to the earth and put another creation in its place.”

The context in which Shah Isma’il said this was to reject what he refers to as the popular misunderstanding of prophetic intercession as “shafa’ati wajahah” which was discussed in an earlier post. He explains that Allah is utterly independent of His creation, and has no need for them whatsoever.

The second part of the translated sentence above is a paraphrase of the Qur’an: Allah says: “O mankind! You are the poor in your relation to Allah. And Allah! He is the Independent, the Praiseworthy. If He wills, He can be rid of you and bring (instead of you) some new creation. That is not a hard thing for Allah.” (35:15-17) & He said: “Allah is the Independent, and you are the poor. And if you turn away He will exchange you for some other folk, and they will not be the likes of you.” (47:38)

The first part of the sentence, which is the section in question, is also the implication of some verses of the Qur’an: For example, under the verse which says, “Had We wished, we would have sent a warner to every village.” (25:51); after explaining how this verse elevates the position of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), al-Razi writes: “The verse implies a mix of gentleness with harshness because it illustrates the power [of Allah] to send a warner like Muhammad to every village, and that the Divine Presence has no need at all for Muhammad.”

الآية تقتضي مزج اللطف بالعنف لأنها تدل على القدرة على أن يبعث في كل قرية نذيراً مثل محمد، وأنه لا حاجة بالحضرة الإلهية إلى محمد ألبتة

Is this disrespect and tanqis posing as ta’zim of Allah?

Slightly later in the same context, Shah Isma’il says “No one can harm Him or benefit Him.” In his footnote to this comment, Sayyid Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali al-Nadwi quotes the hadith qudsi from Sahih Muslim, “Were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you, to be [as pious] as the most pious heart of any one man of you [which is the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), as Mubarakpuri said in his commentary of the same hadith from Tirmidhi], that would not increase My kingdom in anything…”

Gibril Haddad ends his answer by saying: “In the end we repeat it is best to leave it alone, make peace, worship Allah and bless the Prophet.” In that case, why write such a baseless review and attack Shah Isma’il on false charges?

The Argument of the Barelwis: Regarding the Fabricated Fatwa

February 29, 2012

Even when Mawlana Rashid Gangohi explicitly stated that the fatwa justifying lying for Allah, was a lie ascribed to him, the Barelwis still come with this false accusation. Is this what you call academic honesty?

In Faisla Kun Munazra when discussing Ahmad Rida Khan’s justification of attributing the fabricated fatwa to Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mawlana Manzoor Nomani discusses the “proofs” given by Ahmad Rida Khan in Tamhid e Iman to justify this attribution and illustrates their flimsiness, which completely falsifies Ahmad Rida’s self-claim that he is extremely cautious and careful in issuing takfir. Such a flimsy attribution can never be the basis of takfir even for the most careless and reckless mufti let alone somebody who claims to be extremely cautious.

Even if this aspect is ignored, the main premise for attributing this fatwa to Mawlana Gangohi (from Rida Khan’s Tamhid e Iman and Appendix C in the ebook mentioned above) that he did not deny the attribution of this fatwa to him, is in fact untrue. This should be enough to silence the blind followers of Ahmad Rida Khan on this matter:

For references, see pages 77-8 of Mawlana Nomani’s Faisla Kun Munazra here (originally printed in 1933). For example, Mawlana Murtaza Hasan Chandpuri (1868 – 1951) who was a student of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mawlana Muhammad Ya’qub Nanotwi, Mawlana Zulfiqar, Shaykh al-Hind and others, wrote in several of his works in reply to Ahmad Rida Khan, including Tazkiyat al-Khawatir and al-Sahab al-Midrar that he wrote to Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in 1323 (the year he passed away) with the text of the fatwa based on which Ahmad Rida Khan issued the fatwa of kufr and asked him to clarify whether it was his fatwa or not, and Mawlana Gangohi replied: “This is an outright fabrication and pure slander. Who can write such a thing?!” Mawlana Manzoor notes that Ahmad Rida Khan was aware of these writings of Mutaza Hasan Chandpuri, and yet refused to retract his takfir which was baseless to begin with. This should be sufficient for even the present-day followers of Ahmad Rida Khan to absolve Mawlana Gangohi of this baseless fatwa which allows the attribution of lies to Allah – Exalted is He.

A Reply to Preamble to Faith

February 29, 2012

Some Berelwis are circulating an ebook called The Preamble to Faith, which contains the same falsehoods and misrepresentations discussed above. A quick discussion on some of them:

The translator says: “Saharanpuri wrote a book Al-Muhannad in which he denies (both on his own behalf and those scholars of his group) that they held such beliefs and even claimed that they never said or wrote any such thing.”

This false claim that Muhannad does not deal with the original statements or denies them altogether is still repeated even when the translations of the parts in question dealing with those quotes are available on the internet. With respect to all four statements, replies are given. The passage from Hifz al-Iman is translated in a summary-form; the passage from Barahin is summarised, as is Tahzir al-Nas; and the so-called fatwa by Mawlana Gangohi is denied and a statement from Fatawa Rashidiyya, stating exactly the opposite of what is found in that fatwa that whoever believes in the occurrence of falsehood in Allah’s speech is a disbeliever, is produced. So how can it be said after this that the Muhannad “denies (both on his own behalf and those scholars of his group) that they held such beliefs and even claimed that they never said or wrote any such thing,” – unless this is regarding the way in which Ahmad Rida misrepresented the passages to say for example: “Thanawi compared the Prophet’s knowledge to animals; Saharanpuri said satan’s knowledge was more than the Prophet’s; Nanotwi said it is possible for a prophet to be born after the Prophet” – which are all no doubt lies and misrepresentations of the passages in question. In short, the impression the above writer tries to give that Mawlana Saharanpuri skirts the issue, is clearly dishonest and deceptive, as Muhannad directly addresses the quotes/statements/books in question.

Quoting from Barahin, the ebook says: “The expanse of Satan’s knowledge is proven by documentary evidence, [but] where is such absolute documentary evidence for the knowledge of the Pride of the world?”

The sentence is taken out of context, and begins with “yeh wus‘at” (this expanse) with the demonstrative noun referring to a particular expanse in knowledge not all knowledge, or knowledge in general. And the particular expanse in knowledge that is being referred to was mentioned only a few words earlier “encompassing knowledge of the word” (‘ilm muhit zamin) i.e. knowledge of the particulars of this terrestrial realm, not knowledge in general. So it is simply a lie to say Barahin states satan’s knowledge is superior to the prophet’s; and this slander was also explained in Muhannad. For more details see this post above.

This link also addresses Ahmad Rida’s claim that al-Barahin commits shirk by affirming for satan what it states to be shirk when affirmed for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). The translator also says this: “Look at it whichever way you want, but Khalīl is saying that if you prove such knowledge for RasūlAllāh _, you commit shirk; but the same knowledge is possessed by Satan and it is proved by naşş.” As the post explains, this is distortion based on not taking into account the full passage. Mawlana Saharanpuri’s main premise is that affirming knowledge of the unseen for any being more than what is established by clear texts is shirk, as it is tantamount to affirming intrinsic knowledge of the unseen for such a person. Based on this, affirming such unseen knowledge for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) without evidence equates to shirk; whereas for the angel of death and satan, since it is proven by clear text it is not shirk. This is obvious from the entire passage, but Ahmad Rida and his followers distort it. This was clarified and this distortion was exposed nearly a century ago by Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani in al-Shihab al-Thaqib.

Regarding the passage from Barahin the translator says: “It is in this book that Maulvi Khalīl Aĥmed Sahāranpūri says that the knowledge of Satan is proven from documentary evidence and there is no such evidence for the knowledge of RasūlAllāh _. He also wrote another book in Arabic named Al-Muhannad where he denied that he ever said such a thing” It is completely untrue that the Muhannad denies this statement (- it neither affirms it nor does it deny it), as this statement was not even up for question; rather what he denies was the claim that he said satan’s knowledge is superior to the Prophet’s in absolute terms.

The translator further says: “Khalīl Aĥmed misquotes and states the opposite of what Shaykh Abd al-Ĥaq said; such a thing is either as tadlīs or as kadhib. Because, in the first volume of Madārij the Shaykh says: “Some people pose an objection on this and say that it has been mentioned in some reports that RasūlAllāh _ said: ‘I am a slave and I do not not know what is behind this wall.’ Whereas, this statement is baseless and there is no authentic report of this kind.”” This has also been addressed in the post linked above. This claim – which was also made by Ahmad Rida – assumes Mawlana Saharanpuri took the narration from Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq’s Madarij, whereas in fact he took it from his other book on the commentary on Mishkat in which he uses the narration in the context of proof and does not criticise it.

Regarding the ebook’s “analysis” of the passage from Hifz al-Iman, the passage from Hifz al-Iman (discussed in more detail here) says the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not distinguished by partial knowledge of the unseen as others also possess partial knowledge of the unseen. However, Ahmad Rida, as is clear from what he wrote and the examples he uses and from his other work Husam al-Haramayn, misconstrues this to say: these others also possess the same quantity of unseen as the Prophet, not that they merely share with him the quality of possessing partial knowledge of unseen. This distinction between what was originally meant and the distorted meaning of Ahmad Rida was clarified by Mawlana Thanawi himself in Bast al-Banan.

The translator shows either his ignorance or his disregard for truth when he says about Hifz al-Iman “If one reads the whole passage, it is clear that Thānawī rejects ‘part ilm al-ghayb’ and draws similarlity of such ‘part ilm alghayb’ of the Prophet _ with that of animals and madmen; because he trails the discussion with the invalidity of ‘kull ilm al-ghayb.’ So the parallels drawn are not accidental or an incidental outcome, but rather deliberate and intentional.” If he rejects “part ilm al-ghayb,” how can he draw a similarity of it with that of animals and madmen? Mawlana Thanawi’s discussion is straightforward if all the deceptive commentary is removed: He says: ‘Ilm al-ghayb in its technical and absolute sense means intrinsic self-knowledge of the unseen and this can only be used for Allah, as the Qur’an identifies it as His exclusive attribute. It can only be used for others if qualified with an indication (qarinah) stating that this knowledge is received and not intrinsic. With respect to received knowledge of ghayb, even this cannot be regarded as a distinguishing feature of prophethood [- note this was said by earlier mutakallimun too, using the same argument]. This is because partial received knowledge is shared by others, so there is no distinction for prophets, while complete received knowledge is unanimously denied for all creation. Therefore, since ‘ilm al-ghayb is not exclusive to prophets, it should not be made from their distinguishing features.

Regarding the so-called fatwa of Mawlana Gangohi on the validity of the view of the occurrence of lying (wuqu kadhib), as Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani says in al-Shihab al-Thaqib, this is not found in any of his published writings, and is unheard of amongst his students (Mawlana Madani was also one of his direct students), and his published writings say the complete opposite that the belief in the occurrence of lying is clear disbelief; while his actual belief is of possibility, that lying is in His power but will never occur, which is a valid view as for example stated clearly by Ibn al-Humam (which both al-Muhannad and al-Shihab al-Thaqib quote – as they do other books).

The book that is translated in the ebook does not analyse Tahzir al-Nas, otherwise there were clear distortions in Ahmad Rida’s representation of that book too, as shown here.

There are, therefore, several clear distortions which originate from Ahmad Rida Khan, which his Berelwi followers perpetuate rather than justify: Ahmad Rida says Barahin said satan’s knowledge was superior (or “more vast”) than the Prophet’s in an absolute sense, whereas Barahin clearly says “yeh wus’at” referring, using the demonstrative noun, to encompassing knowledge of the world, not knowledge in general; Ahmad Rida says Hifz al-Iman states the knowledge possessed by the Prophet is equivalent to the knowledge of animals and madmen (-i.e. in terms of quantity), yet Mawlana Thanawi himself said this statement is revolting (khabith) and what he actually said was that the quality of possessing partial knowledge of unseen is not exclusive to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), but this possession of partial knowledge is also a property of animals; with Tahzir al-Nas, Ahmad Rida mistranslatedbizzat” as aslan, and rearranged three separate sentences concocting one contiguous quote.

Some Facts about the Kufr Fatwa

February 27, 2012

The Fatwa of Kufr was first published by Ahmad Raza Khan in 1902 through the work al-mu‘tamad al-mustanad. The takfir got more famous under the name Hussam al-Haramayn in 1906 after his hajj, in which he tried to convince the Arab scholars for the validity of his mass takfir. He published the book once back in India.

The reply of the Deobandi scholars came immediately in 1907 through the work al-muhannad ‘ala al-mufannad written by Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri.

Another work was written by Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani called al-Shihab al-Thaqib. Ahmad Raza Khan refers to this work in his book Khalis al-I’tiqad. Mawlana Chandpuri, the khalifa of Mawlana Thanwi, wrote several books against him and challenged him for a debate. Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatawa mentions Mawlana Chandpuri and his unwillingness to debate a khalifa instead of Mawlana Thanwi, who appointed his khalifa on his behalf in order to debate the issue at hand.

Ahmad Raza died in in 1921 so he had more than 10 years to ponder over his takfiri fatwa, but to no avail. Ahmad Raza Khan knew very well the arguments of his opponents and knew about the fabricated fatwa ascribed to Ml. Gangohi.

Despite all of this, the Barelwis still call their leader Ahmad Raza “hesitant and cautious” in takfir. How funny!