Barelwī Distortion of the Prophetic Title “Ummī” (Unlettered)

April 26, 2017

The following is a striking example of the unprecedented ways in which Barelwī scholars attempt to distort established and well-known concepts of deen.

Famous Barelwi scholar, Aḥmad Yār Khān Naīmī (1324 – 1391 H/1906 – 1971 CE), referred to as “Muftī”, “Ḥakīmul Ummah” and “Shaykh al-Tafsīr” by Barelwīs, said to have met with Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī and studied with his students (Tazkira e Akābir Ahl e Sunnat, p. 54), writes on the Prophetic Title, “Ummī” [1]:

“Ummī can have several meanings. The mother and source is referred to as ‘umm’. Its meaning may be the ‘Prophet possessing a mother’. Every person in this world has a mother, but no one has a mother like the mother Ḥuḍūr was given. Ḥaḍrat Maryam had also been a mother, but just as the Master of Prophets is without equal, his mother, Allāh be pleased with her, is also without equal [2]…The second meaning is, one not taught, meaning, he was born from his mother’s womb already being learned, and did not learn to read or write from anyone [3]…A third meaning is being from Umm al-Qurā, i.e. one who lives in Makkah al-Mukarramah. A fourth meaning is being mother-like, meaning, the foundation/source of the entire universe.” (Shān Ḥabībur Raḥmān min Ᾱyāt al-Qur’ān, Maktabah Islāmiyyah, p. 87)

[1] By consensus of classical scholars, “Ummī” means one who is unlettered and not able to read and write. There are many evidences from Qur’ān and ḥadīth proving the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was Ummī and unable to read and write. (See: Ummiyyat al-Nabī al-Muṣṭafā al-Karīm by Mullā Khāṭir)

[2] Naīmī is clearly suggesting that the mother of the Beloved Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is superior to Sayyidah Maryam (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā)! This is another clear example of extremism. The excellence and superiority of Sayyidah Maryam (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) is established in clear texts of Qur’ān and ḥadīths, while there is disagreement over whether the mother of the Beloved Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was even a believer!

[3] On this belief, ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī states: “From these (fabrications) is what they mention that he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was not unlettered (ummī), but was able to read and write by nature. This is a statement opposed to Qur’ān and Sunnah as well as the consensus of the Ummah. It therefore has no consideration.” (al-thār al-Marfū‘ah, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 38)


Exaggerated statements by Ahmad Rida Khan

April 20, 2015

There are many absurd statements of Ahmad Rida Khan that can be found in the book “malfoozaat”, a compilation of the statements of Alahazrat.

One of these absurd statements is the following:


QUESTION:
Sir! Do the Awliya of Allah possess the power of being present at many places at the same time?

ANSWER: Yes! If they so desire then they can be present in a thousand cities at the same time.

 

QUESTION: (by the Compiler) Sir! This means that the image of Alame Mithaal (World of Copies) is under the control of the Awliya for one person to be seen in many places. If it is so, then a doubt is created because replica (images) of a thing is not original. Hence, the presence of a replica is not the presence of the original.

 

QUESTION: The copies or replicas are of the body and the Soul focuses itself with all these replicas and controls them wherever they may be.  According to the reality of the Soul, it is one person present in numerous places. This too, is as far as external intelligence or understanding is concerned because it is recorded in Sab’ah Sanabil Shareef that Aarife-Billah Sayyidi Fathe-Muhammad t used to be present at ten different gatherings at the same time. Someone remarked at the Sheikh when he accepted ten different invitations from separate individuals to be present at their functions at same time. They said that this was not possible.  The illustrious Sheikh replied, “Krishan Kanayya (a Hindu Deity) was a Kaafir and could present himself in hundreds of places at the same time. So why there be a problem if Fathe Muhammad is present in a few places at the same time?”

 

Then Ala’ Hadrat t stated: Do you still doubt that the great Sheikh was present only in one place? No, never! In fact the Sheikh was personally present at all the places. The secrets of spirituality are far beyond the comprehension of man. To doubt and ponder over this matter will certainly affect your Imaan.
____

We ask our barelwi brothers:

What is the proof that a hindu deity was present in 100 places at the same time?
Do you not feel akward to compare our beloved Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) with a kaafir accursed deity?


Ahmad Rida Khans insulting remarks about Sayyida Aisha

December 2, 2014

We did not want to translate this vile, shameless poem of Ahmad Rida Khan, but we wanted to highlight the problematic creed of the barelwis for the neutral reader who is trying to search for the truth in the mids of Ahmad Rida Khan lovers.

He said in  Hadaiq-e-Bakhshish, vol 3 p. 37:

Tang o chust unka libaas, aur wo joban ka ubhaar, muski jati hai qaba sar se kamar tak le kar,
Ye patha parta hai joban meray dil ki surat, ke huy jaate hai jama se baron seena o barr

We will provide a translation but if any Barelwi can provide a better translation, let him come forward:

Her tight fitting clothes revealeth the Robust and Youthful contours of her body, with it’s protruding breasts and jutting bust, and these were searing my thoughts and tearing away at my heart

Can any sane muslim talk about the “tight fitting clothes” of his mother let alone the mother of the believers?!?

 


Some challenges to Abu Hasan of Masabih Forums Regarding his Book, “The Killer Mistake”

October 27, 2013

In this post, we challenge Abu Hasan to substantiate some of the claims he made in his recent book, “The Killer Mistake.” We will only ask him to substantiate two statements that he made in this book. If he cannot, then let him and his blind followers remember what he himself wrote in this book: “May the damnation of Allāh táālā be upon liars.”

[For the rest of us, these examples serve as further evidence that Abu Hasan has imbibed the qualities of deception and lying displayed so strikingly by his ‘grand master’, Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi]

Challenge 1

On page 100, Abu Hasan writes: “What Khalīl had said was that the encompassing knowledge of the earth is proven for Satan but unproven for RasūlAllāh.”

Challenge: Substantiate that Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpūrī said that “encompassing knowledge of the earth” is proven for Satan.

{Note: Nowhere does Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpūrī say encompassing knowledge of earth is proven for Satan. He only affirms “extensive” knowledge of the earth for Satan based on the evidences provided by his opponent. Never does he affirm “encompassing knowledge.” This is, in fact, one of the lies of Ahmad Ridā Khān Barelwī, which Abu Hasan has rehashed here.}

Challenge 2

On page 118, Abu Hasan writes: “Tawassul of Awliyā’ / Prophets [is] Bid‘ah/Shirk according to elders [of Deoband].”

Challenge: Prove that Tawassul is Bid‘ah or Shirk according to the elders of Deoband.

{Note: Even Shāh Ismā‘īl – who is technically NOT an elder of Deoband – allowed Tawassul in Taqwiyatul Imān. He said in Taqwiyatul Imān: “But if it is said, ‘O Allah, give me for the sake of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir’, then this is allowed.” (Taqwiyat al-Iman, p.123) – which Salafis conveniently omit in their translations.

And the Deobandi elders clearly pronounced the permissibility of tawassul in al-Muhannad, quoting from Mawlānā Gangohī himself: “According to us and according to our mashāyikh taking a means (tawassul) in supplications through Prophets and the righteous, from the Friends, martyrs and truthful saints, is permissible during their lifetime and after their death, in that one says: ‘O Allah! I take so-and-so as a means to You that you accept my supplication and You accomplish my need,’ etc. as stated by our shaykh and our master, Shāh Muhammad Ishāq al-Dehlawī thumma al-Muhājir al-Makkī; and then our shaykh and our master, Rashīd Ahmad al-Gangohi – Allah’s mercy on them – clarified it in his Fatāwā, which is in this time widespread and well-circulated in the hands of people, and this issue is mentioned on page 93 of the first volume of it, so whoever wishes may refer to it.”}

Update: Noori, senior moderator on the Barelwi forum, replies: “Khalil said ‘ilm e muhit zamin ka’, did he not use the word muhit?” The challenge was to prove that this “encompassing” knowledge was affirmed for Satan – which is what Abu Hasan claimed -, not that Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri merely used the word. Hence, challenge still stands.

Update 2: After the above update, Noori sneakily added another sentence to his post (which was not there in the original post): “He said ‘shaytan o malik al-mawt ko yeh wus’at nas say sabit hoi’, which wusa’t? That is ‘ilm e muhit zamin ka’.” Incorrect. ‘Ilm muhit zamin ka (encompassing knowledge of the world) is used in Barahin Qati’ah for the hypothetical knowledge that is mistakenly affirmed for RasulAllah (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) based on a false analogy with Satan/Malak al-Mawt (not “Malik al-Mawt” by the way). It is not the knowledge affirmed for Satan. The knowledge affirmed for Satan is the “expansive” knowledge proven in the book that is being refuted (Anwar Sati’ah) i.e. being present with most of the children of Adam. The “expanse” of Satan’s knowledge is already assumed in the passage, as the sentence starts, “Seeing the condition [i.e. expansive earthly knowledge as shown in Anwar Sati’ah] of Satan and Angel of Death” – even before “encompassing knowledge” is mentioned. One can refer to the original book, and clearly see that this is the case. Both challenges, therefore, still stand.

Update 3: Abu Hasan has replied here. I’ll ignore the excess and filth. But what it boils down to is the same thing that Noori said, which has been addressed in “Update 2” above. I see no point in repeating. Anyhow, does that mean Abu Hasan is conceding he lied on the second issue above, which they seem to have conveniently skipped?


Hatred of Alahazrat

July 19, 2013

Dr Mahmood Ahmed Saaqi writes on page 17 in his book “Hazrat Sher e Ahle Sunnat” that a man came to the Lion of Ahlus-Sunnah complaining that his Water Buffalo won’t give any milk even to its own young.Lion of Ahlus-Sunnah suggested to the man to go near the Water Buffalo and say in the ears, “Wahabees & Deobandees are illegtimate (haraami)!” The man did as suggested and the problem was resolved.”

Note: this ammount of hatred is taught in Barelwi mosques every day.


Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi Staring at the Breasts of a Woman!

May 22, 2013


Barelvi Pir Has a Wrestling Match With Allah!

May 21, 2013

In the book Fawaa’id e Fareediya, written by the Barelwi Mawlana Faqeer Mu’ini Shah Jamali it was said:

“Hazrat Abul Hasan Kharqani said: In the early morning, Allah wrestled (kuchti) with me, and he threw us down….I am two years younger than our Lord.”