Calling Others than Allah – Ml. Idris Kandhlawi

November 30, 2012

Mawlana Idris Kandhlawi (1899-1974), a teacher of tafsir at dar al-ulum Deoband who wrote valuable books on aqida like ilm al-kalam wrote a bit on the ruling of those who call others than Allah. He can easibily considered as one of the akaabirin of Deoband.

He says in his tafsir ma’aarif al-qur’an (1/21-24) that there are different types of isti’ana. A short summary of his words:

– Seeking help (isti’ana) from others than Allah is not absolutely forbidden. In some cases it is kufr and shirk, while in some cases it is permissible.
– There is no doubt of the kufr one seeks help with the belief that someone else than Allah is considered a faa’il mustaqill and qaadir bi l-dhat, or with the belief that this is granted by Allah and delegated to him and so, he is now consider qaadir and mukhtaar.
– Or he holds not the belief of something being influencable through mustaqill bi l-dhaat or mustaqill bi l-‘arad, but others have the wahm of his case being istiqlaal, then this type of seeking help is impermissible and haraam. In some cases, there is fear for kufr and shirk.
– In the first case, there is no confusion of the belief being shirk. In the sevcond case, he does not holds the belief of qaadir bi l-dhaat, but he does considered it granted by Allah, and believes Allah has granted to him this qudra and ikhtiyar, which does not fall under human capabilities. He holds the belief of tasarruf, he can distribute it to whoever he wants in whatever way, like a king who has delegated some of his ministers some of his posts, and after this is granted, it is considered mustaqill. In the same way, Allah has granted some ikhtiyarat to his prophets and awliya’ and after being granted by Allah, they are mustaqill and mukhtar. The mushrikeen of Arab held the same belief about their idols and angels.
– In the third case, one holds not the belief of mustaqill bi l-dhat nor mustaqill bi l-‘arad, but he acts the same way like one has the belief of mustaqill bi l-dhat, like performing sajda near the grave, or having vows in his name: this is haram and shirk, but this is not shirk in belief but rather in deed. The one who is guilty of this will not be considered out of the fold of Islam.
– In the fourth case, there is eehaam of being istiqlaal, like when help (madad) is sought through spirituality, even though it is not considered as mustaqill, but since the mushrikeen sought help from the souls with the belief of these soulds being faa’il mustaqill. So seeking help from souls is absolutely haraam. There is no doubt of this act being haraam. There is only hesitation (taraddud) whether this person is considered outside of the fold of Islam. Because of this deed being the manifestation of shirk, so there is strong fear that this person is outside of the fold of Islam.
– Summary of this text is that in the first two cases, it is absolutely kufr and shirk, and the penetrator is considered outside of the fold of Islam. In the last two cases it is absolutely haraam. There is only hesitation whether or not this person will be considered an unbeliever and outside of the fold of Islam. But if help is sought from something, which is from amongst the symbols of the unbelievers and the mushrikeen,then in such a case if a faqeeh or a mufti rules such a person as an unbeliever from the outward, like the person who wears a cross, then there is nothing wrong (mudhaaiqa) with this.

http://ia600802.us.archive.org/18/items/Maarif-ul-QuranByShaykhMuhammadIdreesKandhelvir.a/Maarif-ul-Quran-volume1-ByShaykhMuhammadIdreesKandhelvir.a.pdf


Ahmad Raza Khan is not a Muslim – Allama Khalid Mahmud

November 12, 2012

Courtesy of sf:

My short meeting with Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood

In Brussels, Belgium a gathering for the propagation of the finality of the prophethood took place. In this gathering, scholars such as Mufti Abdul Wahhab (of Iqra TV, who graduated from Binnori Town) and others such as Dr. Khalid Mahmud were invited to speak. His talk was beneficial in the sense that he did not give any references from the works of the Qadianis, but made an appeal to our aql saying that we should use our aql in responding to the Qadianis if you do not have the capacity to memorize references from the books of Qadianis. One example he gave was that we are Ahlus Sunnah so if we would become Qadiani, it would mean we would have to break up the ummah that has been going along for 1400 years, and we are not ready for that.

After the talk I was more concerned with Mawlana Khalid Mahmood in observing and staying with him. He is one of the great scholars of Deoband who graduated from Dar al-Ulum Dhabel. He is quite old now, and has become weak. Needs help when he walks. Does not hear the person in front of him properly and you need to talk loudly if you want him to hear you.

He was surrounded by some people and after the gathering was finished, he went to his room. I followed and asked permission to come in and ask him a few questions. He let me come in and a sat in front of him.

He asked who I was and where I came from. I introduced myself and said I affiliate myself with the scholars of Deoband.

I asked him about some issues from his book, in particular the last verse of surat Luqman. I said to him that in your book Mutali’a Barelwiyat, you stated that denying the meaning of this verse, is unbelief, so I straightforwardly asked him the question whether Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan was an unbeliever for stating the opposite meaning of the verse?

Mawlana Khalid Mahmood replied that first mention what I have literally said in my books. So he asked me first whether you will understand my reply or not. I said I will try to. So he asked what did you understood from the verse. I said that the absolute (kulli) knowledge of those 5 things where known by Allah only. So he said: do you know what kulli means? I said: mufassal? He said that is not the meaning of it. Kulli is a term in logic (mantiq). It is possible that through ilhaam or kashf a person happens to know what is in the womb of a woman. In the meantime, a young mawlana sitting next to us wanted to go and asked permission, but Mawlana Khalid Mahmood didn’t let him, and said: this is important for you as well. Then he narrated the incident of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) stating that a female sister of Sayyida Aisha will be born. Mawlana continued further: to claim Abu Bakr knows what is in the womb of every woman on earth, this is what you call kulli. So this is what I said. As to the point of calling Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan a kaafir, this is not what I have mentioned. When people ask me about it I say: I am not a Mufti.

Then I stated that a certain Mufti does call him a kaafir. Mawlana replied, yes I know he calls him a kaafir. Then I asked: so what is your opinion then? He said, that will be bad adab when you cite the name of a Mufti and ask my opinion about it. So I said: can not there be difference of opinion on this issue between the scholars? So Mawlana said: yes but are you the only person left who gathers the differences between the scholars?

But then in the end he said: yes, I don’t consider him [Ahmad Raza Khan] a Muslim but that is from a general point of view when he is viewed in all issues.

Then he starting mentioning some other blameworthy points of view of Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan, saying he considered the Prophet a part (juz’) of the essence of Allah, and cited the poetry of Ahmad Raza Khan. He went in-depth in mentioning some examples of this.

So I asked him another question about Mamatis. I asked what do you say about Mamatis? He said: I will say they are not ahl as-sunnah. What else will we say? We don’t call them kaafir.

I wanted to ask him some more questions but because of the busy gathering, him being old and the fear of annoying him, and the people surrounding him I didn’t. I asked Mawlana for du’a which he performed for me, shook his hands and left.

A TV crew of ARY news also wanted to join in but Mawlana humbly refused saying we don’t give interviews to TV stations.


A New Book Published by Ml. Ilyas Ghuman in Refutation of Alahazrat

November 4, 2012

This book has been written against the work of Alahazrat, hussam al-haramayn:

http://islamicbookslibrary.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/hussam-ul-haramain-ka-tehqeeqi-jaiza-by-shaykh-muhammad-ilyas-ghumman/

He shows how the Barelwi scholars were against the positions of Shah Waliyullah and his family. They clearly disagree with him and call him a so-called Wahhabi!


Pir Mehr Ali Shah Never Called a Deobandi a Kaafir

November 2, 2012

As proclaimed by the Barelwi preacher Naseer ud Din Naseer citing the student of Pir Mehr Ali. He cites from Mufti Abdus Shakur Hazarwi from Wazirabad saying that his teacher Muhibbun Nabi, who was the student of murid of Pir Mehr Ali, said that he never called any Deobandi a Kaafir (5:00 minutes).

Pir Mehr Ali also immensely respected Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri in his meeting with him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y52CkLNXBK8