Lying and dishonesty is routine for Barelwīs, of both the present – like Asrar Rashid, Abu Hasan, Monawwar Ateeq – and the past. Many lies, distortions and fabrications have been documented on this website.
A Barelwī on twitter going by the handle HM_0123 has been challenging Deobandīs with some “questions”. But questions from diehard Barelwīs of his ilk are more likely than not to be disingenuous. This is evidenced by the fact that he presents clear lies as “evidence”.
For example, in one tweet he wrote the following:
Neither of these statements can be found in Taqwiyat al-Īmān.
Yes, Shāh Ismā‘īl was accused of writing the first statement, but this is based on a passage from Ṣirāṭ e Mustaqīm (not Taqwiyat al-Īmān) that doesn’t actually say what was alleged, and wasn’t even written by Shāh Ismā‘īl to begin with! For details, see here.
On the second issue, Shāh Ismā‘īl wrote an academic treatise arguing the position that Allāh is able to issue a false statement, but it is extrinsically impossible (i.e. for it to occur is impossible). This work is Yak Rozi (again, not Taqwiyat al-Īmān) which was written in response to Faḍl e Ḥaqq Khairabādī.
Regarding the other “filthy stuff” in Taqwiyat al-Īmān, does this include the statement in Taqwiyat al-Īmān that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alaihi wasallam) is the best of creation and must be considered the master of the world, or the statement that tawassul via saints is permitted (Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p82)? For more information on Taqwiyat al-Īmān, see here, here, here, here and here.
One of the questions that HM_0123 posed is regarding so-called opposition to Ḥifẓ al-Īmān before Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī:
Secondly, Ḥifẓ al-Īmān was completed in Muḥarram of 1319 H (1901 CE), and Aḥmad Riḍā Khān wrote his screed against it very shortly after in al-Mustanad al-Mu‘tamad (p229) in 1320 H (1902 CE).
Thirdly, the reference HM_0123 provides: Bazm e Khair iz Zaid, the alleged incident is mentioned on page 20 of this edition, and the context makes it clear that it (allegedly) took place in 1329 H/1911 CE (see: p11 onward).
Yet he claims it took place “BEFORE” Aḥmad Riḍā Khān wrote against it!
This is thus another example of false “evidence”.
Such “refutations” by Barelwīs can only be taken seriously when: a) they stop telling lies, and b) they deal with the detailed refutations that have been presented here on this website time and again to the same old regurgitated false Barelwī claims and allegations.