Blasphemous Barelwī Belief: The Prophet is Not a Human Being in Reality but Only Appeared in Human “Garb”

January 25, 2019

One of the most perverted and repugnant Barelwī beliefs is that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not from the jins (species) of humanity, but was a separate creation made of light that came in human form. To illustrate their belief, Barelwīs will often draw an analogy with Jibrīl (‘alayhissalām) – who is an angel made of light that at times came in human form. Hence, according to this Barelwī belief, in his physical reality, the Prophet is not a human being. This is a blasphemous belief.

The Fatwā of Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī

In a fatwā dated Shawwāl of 1346 H (1928 CE), Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) describes the statement of a preacher that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was a human being in outward form but not in reality (ānḥaḍrat ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam dar ẓāhir ṣūrat bashar būd walekin dar ḥaqīqat bashar nabūd) as kufr. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, Maktabah Dārul ‘Ulūm Karāchī, 5:234)

The Correct Sunnī Belief

Describing correct Sunnī belief, Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar (1914 – 2009) said: “Our īmān and conclusion is that Imām al-Rusul Khātam al-Nabiyyīn Ḥaḍrat Muḥammad Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was a human being as well as light. From the perspective of his species and essence, he was a human being, and from the perspective of his character and guidance he was a light. By virtue of him, the world of darkness acquired light. The darkness of kufr and shirk disappeared and from the rays of the light of īmān and tawḥīd, the surface of the earth became illuminated.” (Nūr wa Bashar, Maktabah ‘Ukāẓ, p. 8) Explaining correct belief, Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī said: “In terms of being a human being, in terms of physical composition and make-up, he is the same as the ummah.” (Quoted in Nūr wa Bashar, p. 82-3)

Disrespect of the Prophet

Indeed, denying that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is from the human species is degrading his lofty status since human beings are the greatest of species. ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927) said: “To take out his (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) person from being human – which is the noblest and most exalted of creation – and placing him in another species is pure disrespect and degradation of his lofty station…There is no doubt that brotherhood in the very property of being a human being, and equality in terms of being from the children of Ādam, has been established in the text of the Qur’ān; while, in the perfections of proximity, nobody has called him a brother or believes him to be equal [with others].” (al-Barāhīn al-Qāṭi‘ah, Dārul Ishā‘at, p. 7)

Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī: The Prophet is a Light that Came in Human Garb

According to this popular Barelwī belief, articulated by some of their leading scholars, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not a human being in reality, but only appeared as one outwardly. Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī (1901 – 1971), a prominent Barelwī scholar, debater and writer, said: “It is established from this noble verse that the reality of the Chosen One (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was not of human nature, but his reality was of light.” (Miqyās e Nūr, Makabah Sulṭāniyyah, p. 24)

Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī further says: “The Chosen One (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was really light, and the divine power sent him into the world through the intermediary of parents by giving the light a human and luminous form. The Muḥammadan reality of light overpowered his blessed body. Thus, from amongst the creatures made of light, angels were also of light. However, when Ḥaḍrat Jibrīl Amīn (upon him peace) appeared, dressed in a human body, his human body overpowered his luminuous nature, such that in this specific bodily form he could not fly to the furthest lote tree, and in fact he could not go to the first heaven. But the true light of the Chosen One (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) overpowered his human body, which together with the bodily and luminous nature traversed all the heavens.” (ibid. 26-7)

While justifying his belief vis a vis the Prophet’s clearly human features, ‘Umar Icharvī says: “Jibrīl too came in the form of a human being, and he too came adorned with human features like hands, feet, nose, ears…If Jibrīl (upon him peace) coming in human garb and hands, feet and so on appearing on him do not cause any difference to him being a light, then the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace)’s pure hand and pure feet being apparent does not necessitate any difference to him being a [physical] light.” (Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, p. 242-3)

Icharvī even goes as far as to analogise the Prophet in this respect to Allāh! He says: “Just as it is necessary to adopt īmān in hands that are without equal, a shin without equal and a face without equal for the pure and free essence of Allāh (Exalted is He), you have been prohibited from drawing any likeness with the pure limbs of the embodied light of the Noble Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and have to adopt īmān [in this]. Allāh (Exalted is He) is without comparison in His essence and characteristics and He created His beloved (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) from pure light, so he manifested his essence together with his characteristics without any equal.” (ibid. p. 243)

Analogies of this kind between the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Allāh when making such points are not uncommon in Barelwī literature.

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: The Prophet is not from Jinn, Man or Angels

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī (1906 – 1971), another very well-known and accepted Barelwī scholar (and student of famous Barelwī scholar Na‘īmuddīn Murādābādī), says: “The Prophet appears from the species of man and is a human [but] is neither jinn, man nor angel. These are material laws. Otherwise, being a human being started at Ādam (upon him peace) since he is the father of man, while Ḥuḍūr (upon him peace) was a prophet at the very time that Ādam was between water and clay. He himself said: ‘I was a prophet while Ādam was between water and clay.’ At this time Ḥuḍūr was a prophet not a human being.” (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, Na‘īmī Kutub Khānah, p.173)

Note: He is arguing from this ḥadīth that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) existed in his true form before Ādam (‘alayhissalām) was created. But the correct meaning of this ḥadīth (the correct wording of which is, “I was a Prophet while Ādam was between spirit and body”) is, as explained by al-Ṭaḥāwī, that Allāh had sent a written decree confirming his prophethood at this time. (Sharḥ Mushkil al-Athār, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 15:234)

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: The Prophet Said he is a “Human Like You” just as a Hunter Imitates his Prey!

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī says about the verse of Qur’ān: “Say: I am only a man like you” (18:110): “The address in this verse is towards the Kuffār. Since each thing repels a foreign species, therefore it was said: ‘O Kuffār, don’t fear me, I am from your species, I am a human being.’ A hunter produces the sound of animals to hunt. The aim of this is to draw the Kuffār towards him. If Deobandīs are also from the Kuffār, this address may also be towards them.” (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, p.176)

Here, Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī compares the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) to a hunter pretending to be something he is not so as to catch prey! Is this not disrespect? Is this not accusing the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) – na‘ūdhu billāh – of deception?

His point is all the more flawed from the perspective that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said, “I am a man like you” (innamā ana basharun mithlukum) to the ṣaḥābah – the most elite of Muslims. According to the Muwaṭṭa’ of Imām Mālik in the transmission of Abū Muṣ‘ab al-Zuhrī (Mu’assasat al-Risālah, no. 2877), Umm Salamah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) narrated from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: “I am only a human being like you. Indeed, you argue before me and one of you may be more expressive in his argumentation than the other, so I will decree in his favour according to what I hear from him…”

Ibn Mas‘ūd (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) transmitted from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: “I am a man like you, I forget like you forget.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Maktabat al-Bushrā, no. 1282) Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydillāh (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) transmitted from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: “I am a man like you, and [my] speculation may be incorrect or correct.” (Sunan Ibn Mājah, Dār al-Risālat al-‘Alamiyyah, no. 2470)

In all of these instances, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said “I am a man like you” to his believing companions.

Na‘īmī’s take on the verse is thus an example of tafsīr bi ‘l-ra’y (misinterpreting the Qur’ān based on personal judgement), an activity strongly condemned in ḥadīth, and something that betrays the falseness of Barelwī claims to orthodoxy and adhering to tradition.

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī: “Say: I am a Man Like You” is from the Mutashābihāt!

Aḥmad Yār Khān Na‘īmī further says: “Just as ‘Allāh’s hand is above their hands’ or ‘the likeness of His light is like a niche…’ and other verses which are found to apparently be against divine nature and are from the mutashābihāt (unclear verses), in the same way innamā ana basharun mithlukum and other verses which are apparently against the status of the Chosen One are from the mutashābihāt. Thus, to adhere to their outward as evidence is wrong.” (Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, p. 178)

This is a further example of Barelwī literature drawing a false analogy between the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and Allāh.

Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Rashīd Rizvī: The Prophet was Light that Appeared in Human Garb

Barelwī, Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Rashīd Rizvī, says: “Ḥuḍūr Raḥmatun lil ‘Ālamīn was in reality and in origin light. For the guidance of human beings, to present an example worthy of imitation before people, his light was made to appear in the form of a human being. When the light was made to appear in human garb, he remains a light despite being affected by human attributes, and his reality and origin is not negated. Several accounts of such are found in Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. Thus in a pure ḥadīth it is narrated that the angel of death came to Mūsā (upon him peace) so Mūsā struck the eye of the angel and gouged it out. Jibrīl Amīn is light yet to grant Sayyidah Maryam (Allāh be pleased with her) a child he came in the garb of a human being. Despite this, he remained a light.” (Rushd al-Īmān, Maktabah Rushd al-Īmān, p. 45)

Conclusion

In correct Islāmic/Sunnī belief the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is from the species of man and did not just appear as a man. In the Barelwī belief described above, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is only a man in as much as Jibrīl (‘alayhissalām) was “a man” i.e. in mere appearance, not in reality. This belief amounts to denying the reality of the Prophet’s humanity, and is thus disbelief and diminishment of the lofty status of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). (Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, 1:57)

Will Barelwīs who pretend to be neutral, objective Sunnīs (like the liar Asrar Rashid) denounce this unIslāmic, repugnant and blasphemous belief?

What this example (and others like it) illustrate is that Deobandī ‘Ulamā’ were true defenders of the correct, orthodox Islāmic creed, while Barelwīs were innovators and distorters of Sunnī belief. Barelwīs are the ones who in truth are guilty of heresy while they casually and unjustifiably throw around accusations of heresy at those undeserving of it. It may even be that their deviance is a punishment for their unfounded attacks of righteous ‘Ulamā’ and Awliyā’.

 


Sayyid Barzanjī: Complete Knowledge of the Five is Exclusive to Allāh, the Minority Disagreement is Rejected

January 24, 2019

In Ghāyat al-Ma’mūl, Sayyid Barzanjī explains in regard to the “five things”* that total knowledge of them is exclusive to Allāh. Angels and human beings may only receive partial, non-detailed knowledge of them. He explains that “the angel of death being aware of who will die that year and the angel of rain of all rain that will occur in it and the angel of wombs of who was born in it, it is an awareness that is non-detailed, not with full detail; and likewise the awareness of a prophet or saint of any of that or of something that will occur from him the next day – it is in a non-detailed manner not with full detail…The awareness of those mentioned is of only some particulars (juz’iyyāt) of those things, not by way of total encompassment.” (Ghāyat al-Ma’mūl, p. 67-8)

He also explains that Isrāfīl’s (‘alayhissalām) knowledge of when the final hour will be just before it occurs does not contradict the fact only Allāh knows when it is. He states: “…like Isrāfīl’s (upon him peace) awareness of the timing of the occurrence of the final hour when Allāh (Exalted is He) commands him to blow into the trumpet, this too does not arise [as an objection to the knowledge of the five being exclusive to Allāh], because this is at the time of Allāh establishing [the final hour], so it falls under the ruling of us becoming aware of it after it occurs because something that is near to a thing is given the same ruling as it.” (ibid. p. 69)

In other words, no one knows the precise time of the final hour until it will take place. Isrāfīl’s knowledge of it just before it occurs does not contradict this, as that is exactly at the time of its occurrence. As the Qur’ān states: “Knowledge of [the final hour] is only with my Lord. None will reveal it at its time, besides Him.” (7:187) At the time the final hour is to occur, no one will reveal it besides Allāh.

Barzanjī further says: “The truth that is derived from the evidences of the Book and Sunna and the statements of the ṣaḥābah and others from the vast majority of the salaf and khalaf, as you have seen, is that [the Prophet] (upon him blessing and peace) is not aware of the timing of the occurrence of the final hour, nor of the five unseen things in the manner that we mentioned (i.e. with encompassment, and in full detail). This does not entail diminishing his status because that which is intrinsically sought after in the appointment of prophets and sending heavenly books is explaining religious rulings and the obligations of Sharī‘ah. So what is necessary for prophets is for their knowledge of these rulings to be in the most complete manner [possible]. A small minority of the later ones have adopted the view that [the Prophet] (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was aware of the five unseen things also but they did not cite a clear evidence for that from the Book and Sunnah…The answer to this is what Shaykh ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī said in the introduction to his book al-Yawāqīt: ‘Allāh forbid that I oppose the majority of the Mutakallimīn and believe the truth of the speech of those after them from the people of spiritual unveiling who are not infallible.’” (ibid. p. 81-2)

The belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was given knowledge of the precise timing of the final hour and of exhaustive, total knowledge of all creation (including of the five things) is amongst the most cherished beliefs of Barelwīs, which sets them apart from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jamā‘ah. Barelwīs who pretend to be objective, neutral Sunnīs, and claim to follow mainstream Ash‘arī creed, should weigh this claim of theirs against the absurdly unscriptural and irrational Barelwī belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was given total, encompassing knowledge of all creation. Do they give more priority to the aberrations and heresies of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī or to correct Sunnī ‘aqīdah? If the former, they are not “Sunnīs” as they fraudulently claim but pseudo-Sunnīs and Ahl al-Bida‘.

* Mentioned in Sūrah Luqmān, namely the exact timing of the final hour, knowledge of rain, what is in the wombs, where people will die and what will happen in the future.


The Clear Blasphemy & Kufr of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī – Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī and ‘Allāmah Khālid Maḥmūd

January 14, 2019

Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī raḥimahullāh addresses the “explicit kufr in which there can be no ta’wīl” of some heretics who claimed that Shaykh ‘Abdul Qādir al-Jīlānī is equal to, or has surpassed, Allāh Ta‘ālā in the quality of the creation being in need of him! Na‘ūdhu billāh. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, Maktabah Dārul ‘Ulūm Karāchī, 6:75)

Ḥakīm al-Ummat Thānawī raḥimahullāh explains that, “The being 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.” (ibid. 76)

He then explains this as divine punishment for the Mubtadi‘īn (innovators) who lay false allegations against the noble ‘ulamā’ of dīn:

The Mubtadi‘īn who have waged war against those who wrote that [creating] a likeness of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is under the Power of the Creator (Exalted is He) but extrinsically impossible, and have popularised the [correct] belief of expressing the Power of the Absolutely Powerful under the [ambiguous] slogan of “imkān al-kidhb” and thereby have created ill-feeling amongst the ignorant for the ‘ulamā’ of dīn, those [very same Mubtadi‘īn] have fabricated the [false] belief about Ḥaḍrat Shaykh [‘Abdul Qādir al-Jīlānī] that, Allāh forbid, Allāh has made him His equal, and in fact made him superior to Himself, which is certainly explicit kufr. This punishment has befallen these people on account of the bad language they have used in relation to the respected ‘ulamā’ of dīn and as a result have acquired the mark of blackened faces in both worlds. (ibid. 6:76)

The “blackened faces” in this world refers to humiliation and being exposed. (Muṭāla‘ah Barelwiyyat, by Dr. ‘Allāmah Khālid Maḥmūd, Hafzi Book Depot, 5:69)

Ḥakīm al-Ummat Thānawī raḥimahullāh explains further that the one who entertains such a belief is “certainly a Mushrik and Kāfir”. He then quotes two poems which are “in the same vein” (Imdād al-Fatāwā, 6:76). The first poem states that, na‘ūdhu billāh, Allāh, the Sovereign, has made the one He has given His attention to equal to Him and thus he is “not less than Allāh”! He writes that this poetry is “explicit shirk”, and “the one who composed this verse is worthy of being considered a Mushrik and outside of Islām.” (ibid.)

Then he refers to a second verse of poetry that says:

I will call you Mālik (the Owner) for you are the Mālik’s beloved, for there is no otherness/separation between the beloved and the lover.

Ḥakīm al-Ummat Thānawī raḥimahullāh states that “Mālik” here has been used in the meaning of “God” (Khudā), and thus the clear meaning of the verse is that the person being addressed “is Allāh’s beloved and there is no difference between the beloved and the lover, and thus he is also, Allāh forbid, divine!” Thus, the writer of the verse “is deserving of the same ruling which has been given for the first verse. The ruling cannot change based on any ta’wīl because the words are completely clear.” (ibid. 6:76-7)

‘Allāmah Khālid Maḥmūd ḥafiẓahullāh comments:

The fatwā that Ḥakīm al-Ummat (Allāh have mercy on him) gave on the first verse is that the one who said this verse is a Mushrik and outside of Islām.

Now, he has given this same fatwā on the one who said this second verse. To whom does this second verse of poetry belong? It belongs to Mawlānā Aḥmad Riḍā Khān. (Muṭāla‘ah Barelwiyyat, 5:70)

The line can be found in Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s Ḥadā’iq Bakhshish. (Scans below).

Those who lie and slander the great imāms of dīn should take heed. Allāh has declared war against those who show enmity to his Awliyā’. It would not be farfetched that the one Allāh has declared war against, the greatest gift Allāh has given him – his īmān – will be snatched away from him in one way or another. Shaykh al-Islām Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī raḥimahullāh explains:

Based on a prophetic statement, the takfīr will fall back on Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Ṣāḥib Barelwī. It is found in a clear text and an authentic ḥadīth that one who does takfīr or curses anyone, it will certainly fall back on one of the two: if that individual is deserving [of takfīr or the curse], then on him, and if not, it will turn back on the speaker. Thus, since the respected Elders of Deoband and Sahāranpūr are innocent of this [takfīr], this is why all of these takfīrs and curses, turning back on Barelwī and his followers, will become a cause of punishment for them in their graves, and a cause of īmān coming out and certainty and conviction departing them at the time of death. Upon Judgement, these [takfīrs that turn back on them] will be a cause of the Angels saying to Ḥuḍūr regarding all his followers: “You do not know what they did after you!” and, saying, “[Go] far away, far away!”, Rasūl Maqbūl (upon him peace) will push them away from the Fount from which drink is taken and from the Praiseworthy Intercession, [treating] them worse than dogs; and they will be denied the reward, positions and bliss of this blessed Ummah. (al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p. 290)


Lies of Asrar Rashid

December 20, 2018

Ahmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921) and his successors, known as “Barelwis”, had/have a penchant for distorting texts/history to paint their opponents in a bad light, and even to make completely unjustified takfīr of them.

This tradition is upheld by English-speaking Barelwi preachers in the west. One such preacher is Asrar Rashid of Birmingham, UK. He has openly attacked Deobandis, a group of Sunnī Ḥanafī scholars who Barelwis treat as their greatest opponents. In doing so, Asrar Rashid has had to resort to distortions and falsifications just like his Barelwi predecessors. The following will document ten such lies/distortions that have surfaced from only a few of Asrar Rashid’s talks. If someone had the will and energy to scour through other talks of his, who knows how many more lies would be uncovered?

The following is a short summary of these ten lies:

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed that Basṭ al-Banān, Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī’s refutation of the false allegation made against him by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, was written after the latter’s death. This is categorically false. It was written in 1911, several years before his death.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed the “Wahhābī scholar” al-Tuwayjirī authenticated a ḥadīth in Ṭabarānī mentioning that the world appeared to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) like the palm of one’s hand, and said it is ṣaḥīḥ. This is false – he did not say it is ṣaḥīḥ. The ḥadīth is in fact very weak.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed Faḍl e Ḥaqq Khayrābādī was hanged. This is false. He died a natural death while imprisoned on the Andaman Islands.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed that Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir – a work he does not like – misreports that Faḍl e Ḥaqq Khayrābādī only rebelled against the British because the British stopped paying him. This is false – nothing like this is found in Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed that Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī referred to Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb as a “reviver of Islām”. This is false. Mawlānā Gangohī never referred to Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb as a “reviver of Islām”.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed that Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written in 1821. This is categorically false, since the earliest known manuscript of the work dates to 1818.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed the British distributed an Urdu edition of Taqwiyat al-Īmān in India, claiming this is a “fact”. This is false and an unproven myth.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was said to have gone to Balakot (where he was martyred) to preach Tawḥīḍ or to fight the British. This is false. Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd went to Balakot as part of a contingent of Mujāhidīn to continue activities in establishing Islāmic governance and overthrowing a brutal Sikh regime.

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed that according to (the Ṣūfī tract) Ṣirāṭ e Mustaqīm to think “of the best of creation” invalidates the ṣalāh. This is false – Ṣirāṭ e Mustaqīm does not say anywhere that to think of the Beloved Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in ṣalāh invalidates it. (In fact, it states the opposite – that at times the thought of prophets can be from the blessings of ṣalāh).

 

  1. Asrar Rashid claimed that a passage of Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah states that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) being in the higher abode does not make him any better than Malak al-Mawt (the angel of death). This is a completely false reading of the passage in question. The passage in question actually states that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is superior to Malak al-Mawt and is in the highest ‘Illiyyīn, but despite this one cannot claim he has equal knowledge to Malak al-Mawt in areas that the latter is known to have greater awareness (like the locations/times of death of people).

For documentation and details of these lies, visit:

https://www.basair.net/sectarianism-and-its-roots-in-the-indian-subcontinent-a-response-to-asrar-rashid/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/more-lies-of-asrar-rashid-al-barelwi/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/further-lies-of-asrar-rashid-al-barelwi/

When it is at the expense of opponents or in favour of their own misguidance, Barelwis like Asrar Rashid don’t appear to have any problem with outright lies.

Asrar Rashid had ample time to retract some of the above false claims. If an individual does not take back clear falsehoods and persists on them, he will be considered a “liar”. Ibn Ḥibbān said: “One whose error was explained to him and he comes to know of it, but does not take it back and persists on it, he is a liar.” So like others of his ilk, Asrar Rashid is a flagrant liar, and nothing he says should be trusted without proper verification.


Further Lies of Asrar Rashid al-Barelwi

December 16, 2018

Barelwism can be characterised (amongst other things) as a tradition bent on distorting texts and history to paint opponents in a bad light. Asrar Rashid is a contemporary Barelwi who upholds this distinctive Barelwi tradition. Under our previous post documenting some of Asrar Rashid’s lies*, a commenter posted a relatively old talk of his in which he regurgitates Barelwi “reasons” for making takfeer of the Deobandi Akabir. The talk is titled “Refutation of Nuh Keller’s ‘Iman, Kufr and Takfir’”. Since we are on the topic of Asrar Rashid’s lies, it would be fitting to list a few lies that have surfaced from this talk.

First Lie

Asrar Rashid claims:

With [Hifz al-Iman] is Bast al-Banan wa Taghyir al-Unwan which he wrote after to defend his statement, after he was taken to task by al-Imam Ahmad Rida Khan. He wrote these works after al-Imam Ahmad Rida Khan passed away.

He is claiming that Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi’s Bast al-Banan – which is a refutation of the false allegation made against him by Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi and of the false reading of a passage from Hifz al-Iman – was written after the death of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi. This is false. Bast al-Banan was written in 1911, many years before the death of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi. Bast al-Banan is dated Sha‘ban of 1329 AH (1911 CE) (Hifz al-Iman, Darul Kitab, p 32). Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar (1914 – 2009) writes: “Hazrat Thanawi (Allah Most Exalted have mercy on him) published this lengthy answer with the title Bast al-Banan in Sha‘ban of 1329 which is appended to Hifz al-Iman itself. After the publication of this answer, Khan Sahib was alive for around 11 (lunar) years, but despite this clarification and explanation of Hazrat Thanawi Sahib, Khan Sahib did not part from his kufri determination…” (Ibarat e Akabir, p 191)

Bast al-Banan of course did not go unnoticed by Barelwis, hence some wrote “refutations”. One of these Barelwi refutations, Waq’at al-Sinan is clearly dated to 1330 AH – several years before the death of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi. Asrar Rashid’s claim, therefore, that Bast al-Banan was written after the death of Ahmad Rida Khan is resoundingly false.

Second Lie

Referring to Sirat e Mustaqim, Asrar Rashid says:

Where the statement regarding the Muslim praying in his prayer and he thinks of a donkey his prayer is not invalid but if he thinks of the best of creation his prayer is invalid. Everyone has heard this statement. This is found in this book Sirat e Mustaqim.

This statement is not found in Sirat e Mustaqim. The discussion in Sirat e Mustaqim is not about the validity or invalidity of salah, but about certain distractions and preoccupations of the mind, and which are worse than which. Hence, Asrar Rashid’s claim that Sirat e Mustaqim states that the salah is invalid because of thinking of the best of creation is false and another lie. In fact, in one place of the discussion in question from Sirat e Mustaqim, it states that on some occasions the thought of prophets can be from the blessings of salah – almost exactly the opposite of what Asrar Rashid imputes.

A detailed discussion of the passage in question can be found here: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/refuting-the-allegation-that-shah-ismail-said-allah-forbid-that-to-think-of-the-prophet-saw-in-salah-is-worse-than-thinking-of-animals/

Third Lie

Discussing a sentence of Barahin e Qatiah of Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Asrar Rashid says:

On page 52 he has worse statements where he says “a‘la ‘illiyyin mein ruh mubarak alayhissalam ki tashrif rakhna aur malak al-mawt se afzal hone ki wajh se hargiz sabit nehin hota”, that if you say the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wasallam went to the higher abode then this does not in any way make him any better than Malak al-Mawt.

This is a false reading of the passage from Barahin e Qatiah. Asrar Rashid is claiming that the sentence states the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not proven to be greater than Malak al-Mawt (Angel of Death) on account of being “in the higher abode”. This is not at all what it says.

The actual passage says that on account of his blessed soul being in the ‘Illiyyin and on account of his superiority to Malak al-Mawt, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cannot be said to have knowledge of certain things (like the locations and times of death of people) that Malak al-Mawt possesses. As one can see, Asrar Rashid’s reading is completely false. He did not read the full Urdu sentence, and nor did he translate the sentence correctly. The full Urdu sentence reads:

“Pass a‘la ‘illiyyin mein ruh mubarak alayhissalam ki tashrif rakhna aur malak al-mawt se afzal hone ki wajh se har giz sabit nehin hota keh ilm aapka in umoor mein malak al-mawt ki barabar ho cheh jaikeh ziyadah.”

A translation of which is:

“Thus, due to the blessed soul, upon him peace, being in the Higher ‘Illiyyin and being superior to Malak al-Mawt, it is not established at all that his knowledge is equal in these matters (about the locations and times of death of people etc.) to that of Malak al-Mawt, let alone being greater.”

Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri is refuting the fallacious reasoning that just because someone is superior or more virtuous, he must therefore possess more knowledge than another in matters on which virtue does not depend (like the locations/times of death of people).

Thus, these are three further lies that have surfaced from an older talk of Asrar Rashid. These are only the clear lies and falsehoods. Otherwise, there are many problems and holes in Asrar Rashid’s arguments, but this is not the place to go into detail. Readers can find detailed responses to these old arguments on this website and elsewhere.

* https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/more-lies-of-asrar-rashid-al-barelwi/


More Lies of Asrar Rashid al-Barelwi

December 4, 2018

Some lies of Asrar Rashid were documented in a detailed response to one of his talks:

https://www.basair.net/sectarianism-and-its-roots-in-the-indian-subcontinent-a-response-to-asrar-rashid/

These are “lies” because Asrar Rashid refuses to acknowledge or correct them. Two clear lies from the above response are noted here:

  1. His claim that Fadl e Haqq Khayrabadi was hanged
  2. His claim that Nuzhat al-Khawatir reports that Fadl e Haqq Khayrabadi only rebelled because the British stopped paying him

Both of these claims are completely false. Why does Asrar Rashid not retract? Is it because he is afraid of what it will do to his credibility? Is it because he is not interested in the truth when it does not serve the cause of his sectarian agenda? Whatever the case may be, he will justifiably be deemed a liar.

Recently Asrar Rashid was preaching Barelwism to a student from South Africa. Some more lies surfaced from this conversation. Two further lies will be documented here:

First Lie

Asrar Rashid said:

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in his Fatawa, he says that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a reviver of Islam

He then repeats the claim:

Now if you went back to your teachers and you told them that I disagree with Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi saying Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is a reviver of Islam

Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi never said Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab is a “reviver of Islam”. This is a clear falsehood and lie, and indeed a slander.

Yes, based on limited knowledge of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his movement, Mawlana Gangohi held a positive opinion of them – but never called Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab a “reviver of Islam”! These are the two complete statements found in his Fatawa:

People call Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb ‘Wahhābi’. He was a good person, and I have heard (sunā hey) that he follows the Hanbali School of thought and acts upon the Hadith. He used to prevent people from innovation and idolatry, but he was harsh in his attitude. (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p. 292)

And:

The followers of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb are known as Wahhabis. They had good beliefs and their school of thought was Hanbali. They were very stringent in their attitude but he and his followers were good people. Yes, those who exceeded the limits were overcome by corruption. The belief of all is the same, and the difference they have in actions is like that of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools of thought. (ibid.)

As can be seen, nowhere does Mawlana Gangohi refer to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab as a “reviver of Islam”.

Mawlana Gangohi’s major students like Allamah Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri and Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani all clearly spoke negatively of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Mawlana Madani even explained that the reason Mawlana Gangohi held a positive opinion of the movement is because of his lack of knowledge about it. For details, see: http://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/17/muhammad-wahhab-sight-deobandi-ulama

Second Lie

Asrar Rashid says:

In a hadith in Tabarani the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam said: إن الله رفع لي الدنيا, that Allah subhanahu wa ta‘aalaa raised for me the world and I look at it like the way one of you looks at the palm of your hand. Yes, that’s a hadith in Tabarani. That hadith is authenticated even by Wahhabi scholars. You know there’s a Wahhabi called al-Tuwayjiri. Al-Tuwayjiri authenticates the hadith. He says it’s sahih.

Tuwayjiri has a work on the signs of the Final Hour. He refers to the hadith Asrar Rashid cites in 2 places of this work (Ithaf al-Jama‘ah bima ja’a fi l-Fitan wa l-Malahim wa Ashrat al-Sa‘ah, 1:6, 12). In neither place does he say the hadith is “sahih”. The hadith* is in fact da‘if jiddan (extremely weak) or mawdu (fabricated). It hinges on a Sa‘id ibn Sinan al-Shami, about whom Ibn Hajar concludes “discarded (matruk), al-Daraqutni and others accused him of forgery” (Tahrir al-Taqrib, 2:33). Hence, in his comment on the hadith, al-Haythami in his Majma’ al-Zawa’id refers to the “excessive weakness” of Sa‘id ibn Sinan.

The hadith is thus not sahih and nor did Tuwayjiri authenticate it. This is another of Asrar Rashid’s lies. If Asrar Rashid wants to know what Wahhabis say about the hadith, he can have a look at Albani’s comments in Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da‘ifah where Albani describes the hadith as “da‘if jiddan”.


The above has referenced/detailed 4 lies of Asrar Rashid. Like his Barelwi comrade, Abu Hasan, it is fast becoming clear that Asrar Rashid is another fraud and liar.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is Asrar Rashid’s claims of being “objective” in his judgement on Deobandi-Barelwi disputes.

Needless to say, people should be careful not to accept Asrar Rashid’s claims – they may turn out to be lies made in the service of advancing a Barelwi agenda.

* The full hadith in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir is as follows:

حدثنا بكر بن سهل، ثنا نعيم بن حماد المروزي، ثنا  بقية ، عن سعيد بن سنان ، ثنا أبو الزاهرية، عن كثير بن مرة، عن ابن عمر، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «إن الله عز وجل قد رفع لي الدنيا، فأنا أنظر إليها وإلى ما هو كائن فيها إلى يوم القيامة، كأنما أنظر إلى كفي هذه؛ جليان من الله جلاه لنبيه كما جلاللنبيين من قبله»


Ilmul Ghayb and the Kufr of Barelwis

December 3, 2018

Source: https://reliablefatwas.com/ilmul-ghayb-and-the-kufr-of-barelwis

The extreme deviance of the Barelwis and the crooked lie of their deceptive claim of being authentic adherents to the Hanafi Madh-hab and the generality (Jumhoor) of the Fuqaha, are exposed thoroughly by their attribution of detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of “everything that was and everything that will be” to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

This belief is summed up, in very clear terms, as follows by their arch-idol, Ahmad Raza Khan:

“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of everything from the first till the last. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun) has been shown to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. Great knowledge has been encompassed by the Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allah. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge.” (Inba al-Mustafa, p.486)

To illustrate better what is meant by the detailed knowledge of “every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness”, let us consider the example of a Nikah (wedding). According to this perverted Barelwi creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses the knowledge of every single one of the billions of Nikah that had ever taken place in the past, is currently taking place, and the billions more that are due to take place in the future.

Furthermore, according to this twisted creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses not only the knowledge of the general arrangements of each and every Nikah, but also every single paraphernalia attached to each Nikah, from the food items, the guests, the clothes worn by the guests, to every other minute detail connected to the Nikah, even the detailed knowledge of each and every leaf that falls in the vicinity of the Nikah and the detailed knowledge of each and every grain that is consumed during the Nikah.

The leafy and grainy detail of the knowledge attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is made clear in unambiguous terms:

From all of the above (i.e. all that has occurred and all that will occur – including obviously every single Nikah) not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet….It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail.”

Similar statements affirming detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of everything to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as opposed to a summary overview (ijmaali) of all significant events relevant to the creation, can be found in other books of Ahmad Raza Khan such as ad-Dawlat ul-Makkiyyah, Khaalis ul-I’tiqaad, al-Malfooz al-Shareef, and also in the books of other arch-idols of the Barelwis such Jaa al-Haq and Shane Habeebur Rahman of “Hakeem ul-Ummat” (The quack doctor of the Ummah), Ahmad Yaar Khan.

Now compare and contrast this belief, O Barelwi worshippers of Ahmad Raza Khan, against THE Fatwa of the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding a person who attributes to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of a single and solitary Nikah for which there is no apparent means for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to gain the knowledge of.

The Hanafi Mujtahid from the 5th Century, As-Sadr ush-Shaheed Husam ud-Deen, who was the senior teacher of numerous other pillars of the Hanafi Madh-hab, including the famous authors of al-Hidaaya and al-Muheet al-Ridawi, narrates the following ruling from his pious predecessors:

من تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله و رسوله لا يجوز لأنه نكاح لم يحضره الشهود، وحكى عن أبو القاسم الصفار أن هذا كفر محض لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله يعلم الغيب وهذا كفر

“Whoever marries a woman, taking Allah and his messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as witnesses – it is not permissible because witnesses are not present for the Nikah. It is related from Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar that this is Kufr Mahd (pure, unadulterated disbelief that expels a person from Islam) because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb) and this is Kufr.” [Al-Waaqi’aat, page 70 of the manuscript]

Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar as-Soofee (326H) was a Hanafi Mujtahid with only three links between himself and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh). This fatwa has been accepted and transmitted in every age by the Hanafi Fuqaha. The very same Fatwa or similar versions to it were accepted and quoted approvingly by the early Fatwa manuals which constituted the Hanafi Madh-hab such as al-Fataawa ul-Walwaalijiyyah (Vol. 5, pg. 422), Khulaasat ul-Fataawa (Vol. 4, pg. 385), al-Muheet ul-Burhaani (Vol. 7, pg. 407), al-Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyyah (Vol. 6, pg. 325), al-Fusool ul-Imaadiyyah, al-Multaqat (pg. 244), Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan (Vol. 2, pg. 517), and other authoritative texts.

Again, compare and contrast the statement, “this is pure Kufr because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb)”, with the Barelwi Aqeedah as exemplified by another one of their arch-idols, Muhammad Umar Icharwi, who commits the greatest act of Kufr and Gustakhi (demeaning Allah and his Rasool sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by making Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophethood wholly dependent on an attribute exclusive only to Allah Ta’aala:

For the Prophethood to be valid it is necessary that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows ALL OF THE UNSEEN.” (Miqyase Hanafiyyat, p. 385) 

Let us now relate a few of the different versions of the same Fatwa related by all the authoritative Hanafi texts, in order to aid in acquiring a better understanding of the import of the Fatwa and the severity of the issue at hand.

The following version is found in the authoritative compendium of the Hanafi Madh-hab, Fataawa ul-Hindiyyah, which was the product of a collaborative effort involving hundreds of Ulama from around the Ummah who were commissioned by Hadhrat Alamghir Aurangzeb (rahmatullah alayh) to record those rulings upon which there is consensus or a general agreement amongst the Hanafi Fuqaha:

“A man marries a woman while witnesses are not present. He says: “I make Allah and His Rasul witness”, or he says, “I make Allah and His Angels witness”, he becomes Kaafir; but if he says: “I make the angel on the left shoulder and angel on the right shoulder witness”, he does not become a Kaafir.” [Vol. 2 pg. 288]

As in most of the other authoritative Fatwa manuals, no ikhtilaaf on this particular issue is cited, while in the very same chapters, multiple other beliefs or statements are often listed  regarding whose Kufr there exists an Ikhtilaaf. For example, regarding the anthropomorphic statement, “Allah is looking from the throne“, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah states that this is Kufr (with no attention paid to the intention of the utterer) “according to the majority” i.e. a minority refrained from doing Takfeer for this crime.

The same version of the Fatwa narrated by Fataawa al-Hindiyyah is found in earlier compilations such as Khulaasat ul-Fataawa, al-Fusool ul-Imdaadiyyah, Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyah and al-Muheet ul-Burhaani.

Explaining why the one who invokes the two writing angels (Kiraaman Kaatibeen) as witnesses does not become a Kaafir, as opposed to the one who attributes the knowledge of the very same Nikah to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the author of al-Muheet narrates from an earlier Fataawa compilation:

He does not become Kaafir because those two (i.e. the writing angels in the right and left shoulders) do know that (i.e. the Nikah), since they are not absent from him (i.e. the man making the statement).” [Vol. 7, pg. 407]

This succinctly answers the moronic question posed by Bidatis and Mushriks today, “If it’s not Kufr to ascribe such knowledge to the two writing angels, how could it be Kufr to ascribe it to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)???”

The Hanafi authority of the 6th century, Qaadhi Khaan, while narrating this Fatwa, added:

He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) didn’t have knowledge of the unseen while alive, so how would he after his death?” [Vol. 2, pg. 517]

The terrible crime of the apostate which caused his instantaneous exit from Islam, is mentioned in absolutely unambiguous terms by Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar, in one of numerous transmissions of his Fatwa:

“…since he believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows this Nikah…”

O Barelwi, if the authentic belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has detailed knowledge, leaf and grain, of EVERYTHING that was and that shall be (maa kaana wa maa yakoon), then on what grounds did all these Fuqaha attribute Kufr to the man who believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has knowledge of just the one Nikah?

Isn’t this one Nikah automatically and by default included in the“detailed knowledge of everything that was and everything that will be” which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) supposedly has according to your religion?

Were the Fuqaha all guilty of Haraam Ghuloo’ (extremism) and Gustakhi – demeaning Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) –  by denying for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of billions and billions of Nikah ceremonies?

Or is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable degree of Ghuloo’ and Gustakhi – of the degree of Kufr – by fabricating upon Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge which can be termed  “Ilmun Laa Yanfa’” (knowledge which serves no beneficial purpose) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would repeatedly and earnestly seek refuge?

Is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable level of Gustakhi by mutilating beyond recognition many of the supreme and sublime attributes of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), such as the noble quality of “Ummi” – defined as “unlettered” by the consensus of the Fuqaha whom you fraudulently claim to follow – which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) proudly proclaimed for himself and his (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)?

Is it not you who commit the dastardly Gustakhi crime of implying deficiency in Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by propounding the perverted idea that the consensus of the Fuqaha on the definition of Ummi (unlettered), and the consensus of the Fuqaha on negating for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge that is Ilmun Laa Yanfa’ (such as billions of Nikah ceremonies) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself repeatedly sought refuge, results in a diminishing of the perfections of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Na’oozubillah!?

Did the Salafi arch-idol, Ibn Abdul Wahhab, perform a spectacular and unprecedented miracle (istidraaj) by time-travelling back to the third century and injecting “wahhabism” into the books of all the Hanafi Fuqaha whose books are replete with Fatwas such as the above – Fatwas which condemn unequivocally numerous beliefs and acts that have become the Sha-aair (salient identifying features) of the Barelwis today, such as attributing knowledge of the Hour to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and a chronic addiction to building and plastering over graves – which when cited faithfully by the Ulama-e-Haqq tend to elicit violently allergic reactions and irrational allegations of “wahhabi influence”?

We interject here to point out that while we accept the Hanafi ruling that this particular aspect of Barelwi creed is Kufr, we refrain from doing Takfeer on the Barelwis in general, just as we refrain from doing Takfeer of the Salafis despite the very same Hanafi texts cited above declaring as Kaafir the one who attributes a place or direction to Allah Ta’aala as the Salafis do. We shall dilate on this point in the complete article, to be published in future, which will contain, insha-Allah, a demolition of the Ghutha (trash) arguments employed by the Barelwi arch-idols to befool their followers.

For now, we release this much information, which we believe to be sufficient for most sincere seekers of truth, to warn the Barelwi masses of the potentially eternal doom that awaits them – the status of a Kaafir according to the Jumhoor Fuqaha of the Hanafi Madh-hab – should they persist in clinging onto their deviant religion.