Lies of Barelwī Twitter Handle HM_0123

February 29, 2020

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:

Firstly, regarding Ḥifẓ al-Īmān, read this and this.

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.

See also:

Detailed Look at Controversial Passage from Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah

Eliminating Doubts on Tahdhīr-un-Nas

Brief Responses to Barelwī Allegations of Kufr Against Deobandī Elders


Do Deobandīs Believe Allāh Can Create Another God Like Himself?

February 25, 2020

Some Barelwīs writing online are making the ridiculous accusation that it is Deobandī belief that Allāh can create another god like Himself but will not do so! In other words, they claim that according to Deobandī belief, creating another god is included within divine power (qudrah)!

Like all of the Ahl al-Sunnah, Deobandīs believe the essence (dhāt) of Allāh Himself and His eternal ṣifāt (characteristics) are outside the divine power (qudrah).

This is articulated very clearly by Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī, whose being representative of the Deobandī school is beyond question:

“The essence and characteristics of Allāh, the Absolutely Powerful (Qādir Muṭlaq), are themselves outside the Divine Power. Otherwise, it would necessitate believing that He is able to bring into existence His own likeness, which is absurd.” (Imdād al-Fatāwā, Maktabah Dārul ‘Ulūm Karāchī, 6:76)

A Deobandī speaker, who has not studied the traditional madrasa syllabus, made a blunder in this respect and said otherwise. In typical Barelwī fashion, this mistake is then treated as being representative of Deobandī belief!

Mawlānā Maḥmūd al-Ḥasan Deobandī explains in Juhd al-Muqill why such actions – that entail absurdities or entail changes to Allāh’s essence or eternal attributes – are outside of divine power, while something like punishing an obedient slave or issuing a false statement are not from the same category; actions of the latter kind are included within divine power, but their occurrence is impossible.

When Barelwīs make ridiculous allegations like the above, it should be remembered that so-called Deobandī errors in ‘aqīdah (like those alleged in usām al-Ḥaramayn) invariably turn out to be distortions and fabrications by Barelwīs.

On the other hand, Barelwī ‘Ulamā’ (including Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself) have made explicit errors in ‘aqīdah, such as:

  1. The blasphemous belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not a human being but a light that merely came in human form
  2. The misguided belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has full control over every single thing in creation
  3. The blasphemous belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not unlettered (ummī) but is able to read and write
  4. The blasphemous belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was given knowledge of the precise timing of the final hour
  5. The blasphemous belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) knows (and sees/hears) literally every single thing within creation, with no exception

This is apart from the lies, distortions, fabrications and manipulations that Barelwīs are guilty of, and which have been exposed on this website time and again.


Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī Explains Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī’s Positive Stance towards Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb

February 17, 2020

Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī (1879 – 1957 CE), a prominent student of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905), explains in a letter dated 1950 that Mawlānā Gangohī’s positive stance towards Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb was because of a lack of awareness about him.

He writes:

[To] the one of respected position, may your honour be increased. Assalāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāh wa barakātuh. The answers to the things inquired about are as follows.

Undoubtedly, al-Shihāb al-Thāqib ‘ala l-Mustariq al-Kādhib is my first book. Since it was written against Mawlawī Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī’s refutation, Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn, discussion on the Wahhābīs came as a secondary [discussion], the objective of which was [to show] that our predecessors are aloof of both extremism and laxity – their track was of moderation, and they are the true followers of the noble predecessors of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah.

That which was expressed in the book remains my position, and it is the way of my noble predecessors.

I wasn’t the only one [to write against] Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb and his group. In fact, ‘Allāmah Shāmī (Allāh have mercy on him) has also written [against them] in his book Radd al-Muḥtār Sharḥ al-Durr al-Mukhtār, which is a very reliable and authoritative book in Ḥanafī Fiqh, on p339 of the third volume. Since the author of Radd al-Muḥtār, ‘Allāmah Shāmī (Allāh have mercy on him) lived in that part [of the world] and was from that time, and he had gone to Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah for Ḥajj in 1233 H when Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb and his group had control over Ḥijāz, just as he stated on p674 of the first volume [1], the extent to which he is acquainted with Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb and his group, those living far away and in a later time cannot be as well acquainted.

Hazrat Mawlānā Gangohī (his soul be sanctified) is someone from a much later time living in Hindustan. He did not have as much awareness of the conditions of this group. Thus, in Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah p64, this [i.e. that he has little awareness of the conditions of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb] is stated explicitly in a fatwā. On p8 the passage that is written positively about him, it is based entirely on things that were heard. Hazrat Gangohī (Allāh sanctify his soul) would rely a lot on this book Shāmī. Generally his fatāwā were derived from this book.

The shame of the predecessors, Ḥusayn Aḥmad

Deoband, 4 Rabī‘ al-Awwal, 1370 [ 1950 CE].

(Maktūbāt e Shaykh al-Islām, 2:343-4)

[1] Shāmī mentions that he performed Ḥajj in this year, 1233. (Radd al-Muḥtār, Dār al-Thaqāfat wa ‘l-Turāth, 5:409) What Mawlānā Madanī probably meant to say is that 1233 was the final year that Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s followers remained in power and had control over Ḥijāz, as it was in this year that they were defeated and ousted by the Ottomans.


Shah Isma’il Couplet on Preservation of the Prophetic Body

February 16, 2020

On refuting the allegation that Shah Isma’il Shahid denied the preservation of the body of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam), see here.

The following couplet written by Shah Isma’il Shahid in his Mathnawi Silk e Nur (on praise of the Prophet – sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam)  should clear all doubts about his views regarding the preservation of the body of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam)

ان آنکھوں سے ہڑ چند وہ جسم پاک        بظاہر ہوا مختفی زیر خاک

ولے نور ان کا ہے قائم مقام          کہ ہر پاک دل میں ہے ان کا مقام

Although seemingly that pure body is hidden from these eyes beneath the earth,

Nonetheless, its light stands in its place, as there is a place for it in every sound heart.”

(Mathnawi Silk e Nur, quoted in Shah Isma’il Muhaddith Dehlawi by ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud, p. 132)

The verses are clear that the pure body remains beneath the earth even today.

See also: According to Taqwiyat al-Iman, Rasulullah is Master of the World and the Best of Creation.