Barelwi Alleges Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi Plagiarised From Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani

The Claim

The same Barelwi who was exposed here for spreading misinformation about Taqwiyat al-Iman is also spreading misinformation about Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi. Following earlier Qadiyani claims, the Barelwi is alleging that in a work on the rational benefits of Islamic ahkam (injunctions), titled al-Masalih al-‘Aqliyyah li ‘l-Ahkam al-Naqliyyah or Ahkam-i-Islam Aqal ki Nazar Main, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi plagiarised from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani. He concludes this based on a close resemblance between some passages from this work and sections from different writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani.

Screenshots From the Barelwi’s Social Media

Analysis

But merely showing a close resemblance between different passages is not sufficient to prove plagiarism. Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi may have been taking from a common source or another book that also has the same/similar passages. And, indeed, that is the case here.

Hifz al-Iman (Answer to Q3) & Bast al-Banan – Complete English Translation

Find PDF file here.

The following is a translation of the full question and answer in Hifz al-Iman (authored in 1901), based on which Barelwis allege Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi equated prophetic knowledge to the knowledge of madmen and animals.

It is followed by a full translation of Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi’s Bast al-Banan (authored in 1911), a defence of what he wrote in Hifz al-Iman in response to the ugly allegation of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi.

See also: The Decisive Debate, pp. 68-80; A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, pp. 62-69; al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad, pp. 22-23.

Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī on the Shadow of the Prophet ﷺ – Response to Aqdas Barelwī

We have encountered Aqdas Barelwī before, lying about Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd (رحمه الله) and Taqwiyat al-Īmān.

Recently, while explaining Barelwī belief, Aqdas Barelwī wrote the following:

Note 1: Allāh knows best if Barelwīs consider the denier of the ḥadīth of Jābir (on the light of the Prophet ﷺ being the first creation) to be deviant or not. Suffice it to say Aḥmad Riḍā Khān wrote several treatises on the topic of the light of the Prophet ﷺ & his being shadowless (at the end of the 30^th volume of Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah), and in one place considered its denial “ignorance”. (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 30:661)

Note 2: The ḥadīth of Jābir (رضي الله عنه) appears in the books of the Ahl al-Sunnah only from the seventh century of Hijrah onward (and probably originated from Bāṭinī Ismā‘īlīs). It doesn’t have a trace in any earlier collection. (It exists in a fake manuscript of a “lost section” of Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq. For a detailed analysis, including a supposed “supporting narration” in al-Bayhaqī’s Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah, see this book.) Given what we know now, there can be no doubt that it is fabricated and impermissible to quote as a ḥadīth.

Do Deobandīs Believe Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī Visited Someone with his Actual Physical Body After Death?! – Responding to Another Lie of Hassan Barelwī

We had demonstrated previously that according to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, saints (and prophets) are present with their actual physical bodies at multiple places. Some have also highlighted that a Barelwī scholar, Faiz Aḥmad Uwaisī, said:

“Some suppose that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is present and watching only with his soul. This supposition is incorrect. In fact, the master of both worlds (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is present and watching with his actual blessed body.”

Hassan Barelwī, a mendacious Barelwī who we have encountered before (see here and here), pretends that this is no different from Deobandī belief!

He presents a story from Arwāḥ e Thalāthah in which Maulānā Maḥmūd Ḥasan Deobandī (Shaykh al-Hind) (1851 – 1920) got involved in an unfortunate dispute between Maulānā Aḥmad Ḥasan Amrohī and Maulānā Fakhr al-Ḥasan Gangohī (all students of Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī).

Maulānā Rafī‘uddīn (1836 – 1891) – the second muhtamim of Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband & khalīfah of Shāh ‘Abd al-Ghanī Dehlawī Naqshbandī – summoned Maulānā Maḥmūd Ḥasan to his room in the Dār al-‘Ulūm. He informed him that: “Just now Maulānā Nānotwī (Allāh have mercy on him) visited me with a physical body…He told me to tell Maḥmūd Ḥasan to not get involved in this dispute. I summoned you to tell you this.” Maulānā Maḥmūd Ḥasan repented at Maulānā Rafī‘uddīn’s hand and promised to not involve himself further in this dispute. (Arwāḥ e Thalāthah, p193-4)

This is a story, which is not meant to present Deobandī belief about such matters. Deobandī belief is explained in, for example, Itmām al-Burhān (p466 – 472) of Maulānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar. An image or likeness (mithāl) of a body may appear purely by Allāh’s power, with which the soul may or may not have a connection. The image may appear, without the knowledge of the person. Any actions carried out by the image will be exceptional, temporary, mu’jizahs or karāmats, not permanent states. The one viewing the image may be overcome by a spiritual feeling (ḥāl) that this is the actual body of the person. But this is a subjective experience, while the reality is otherwise. The actual body remains confined to the grave. (ibid.)

However, what is important in this example, is that this was explicitly explained in a footnote on the very page the story is cited! And the footnote is by the editor of the compilation: Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943)! Who, as recognised by all, is one of the foremost seniors of Deoband. The footnote is as follows:

It explains that this incident describes a “representation” (tamaththul) of the soul. This can occur in two ways. One is that there was a mere image that resembled the actual body. Another way is that the soul interacted with physical elements and became an actual physical object (but not the actual body of the person!), and later this body disintegrated. (Arwāḥ e Thalāthah, p194)

But importantly, Maulānā Thānawī explains elsewhere that these phenomena occur only by the power and will of Allāh, and there is no involvement of the person’s will. It occurs only to honour the saint (karāmah). (Quoted in Itmām al-Burhān, p468)

Now, let’s return to the dishonesty of Hassan Barelwī. He shares images of this story, even with the footnote number on the page, but hides the crucial footnote itself from his viewers! A screenshot follows:

The questions to Hassan Barelwī is: Where does it say in the story that Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī “physically left his grave” as he claimed? Why did he omit the footnote that clearly explains what is meant by a “physical body” in the story (i.e. a representation)?

Does a Narration Ibn al-Qayyim Quotes in Jalā’ al-Afhām Show the Prophet ṢallAllāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam Hears from a Distance?

Ibn al-Qayyim quotes the following narration of Ṭabarānī in Jalā’ al-Afhām:

حدثنا سعيد بن أبي مريم: حدثنا يحيى بن أيوب عن خالد بن زيد عن سعيد بن أبي هلال عن أبى الدرداء قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أكثروا الصلاة علي يوم الجمعة فإنه يوم مشهود تشهده الملائكة، ليس من عبد يصلي علي إلا بلغني صوته حيث كان، قلنا: بعد وفاتك؟ قال: وبعد وفاتي. إن الله حرم على الأرض أن تأكل أجساد الأنبياء

This ḥadīth encourages increasing ṣalawāt on Friday because “no person sends ṣalāh on me but his voice reaches me wherever he may be.” This is then confirmed for even after the demise of the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).

Barelwīs like to use this narration from Jalā’ al-Afhām to argue that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) hears from a distance.

Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) was asked about this narration of Jalā’ al-Afhām and the claim that it shows the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) hears from a distance. He answered as follows:

Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb, a narrator in the chain, has been mentioned without nasab. It is a name of several narrators. One is “al-Ghāfiqī” about whom it is written: “He sometimes errs.” Here it is likely to be him. Another narrator is Khālid ibn Zayd. He too does not have nasab. From narrators with this name, one has the habit of omitting his source. Here there is ‘an‘anah, so it is possible there is a narrator missing and the missing narrator is unreliable. A third narrator is Sa‘īd ibn Abī Hilāl who Ibn Ḥazm has described as weak and Imām Aḥmad has described as confused. All of this is from al-Taqrīb.

Further, there is ‘an‘anah in several places. To have the rule of connectedness, meeting has to be proven.

This was a short discussion on the sanad [showing that it is weak].

The matn remains.

First, it contradicts other authentic ḥadīths. For example there is the ḥadīth narrated by Ibn Mas‘ūd (Allāh be pleased with him) in Mishkāt from Nasa’ī and Dārimī:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إن لله ملائكة سياحين فى الأرض يبلغوني من أمتي السلام

“Allāh has angels roaming the earth who convey to me salām from my Ummah.”

This ḥadīth is in Ḥiṣn Ḥaṣīn with reference to Mustadrak al-Ḥākim and Ibn Ḥibbān. Further, in Mishkāt there is a ḥadīth from Bayhaqī narrated by Abū Hurayrah (Allāh be pleased with him):

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته ومن صلى علي نائيا بلغته

“Whoever sends ṣalawāt on me near my grave I hear it and whoever sends ṣalawāt on me from a distance, it reaches me.”

There is a marfū’ ḥadīth in Kitāb al-Jumuah of Nasa’ī narrated by Aws ibn Aws (Allāh be pleased with him) containing:

فإن صلاتكم معروضة علي

“Your ṣalāt is presented to me.”

All of these ḥadīths are explicit regarding not hearing from a distance.

It is evident that Jalā’ al-Afhām isn’t of the same strength as these books. Therefore, the stronger will be given preference.

Secondly, the phrase “بلغني صوته” has scope for interpretation derived from evidence. The principle is: “When there is scope for interpretation, arguing from it is invalidated.” The evidence that is the impetus for interpretation is the other ḥadīths cited. In order to harmonse the ḥadīths, this phrase will be understood to mean that “voice” refers to the “statement of ṣalāh”. A sentence and word is a subcategory of speech which is a subcategory of voice. Thus, durūd sharīf is also “voice”. Further, balāgh (reaching) includes both reaching with an intermediary and without an intermediary. By indication of other ḥadīths, reaching with intermediary is determined. Thus the meaning of “بلغني صوته” would be: “His ṣalāh will reach me via the intermediary of angels.”*

…

After writing the answer, a thought immediately came to mind that the original ḥadīth has “ṣalātuhū” not “ṣawtuhū”. The lām was omitted as an error of the scribe. It is hoped that if multiple copies are checked, then inshā Allāh ta‘ālā, it will appear so in some copy.** The unseen belongs to Allāh. End. 16 Dhu ‘l-Qa‘dah, 1322 (1905 CE).

(Quoted from Imdād al-Fatāwā in Maqālāt ‘Usmānī, 2:322-3)

 

---

 

* Imām al-Sakhāwī states the same. He said: “The statement ‘his voice reaches me’ does not entail that it is without intermediary.” (وقوله بلغني صوته لا تقتضي كونه بلا واسطة) (al-Ajwibat al-Marḍiyyah, 3:931)

He further says (ibid.):

إنه لا فرق في عدم سماعه لمن يكون بعيدًا عنه بين يوم الجمعة وغيرها وإن اختصت الجمعة بمزيد فضل في ذلك وغيره

“There is no difference between Friday and other days in his not hearing from someone at a distance from him, even if Friday has extra virtue in this and other things.”

He further says:

قول الخطباء أو بعضهم فإنه في هذا اليوم أي يوم الجمعة يسمع بأذنيه من يصلي عليه لا أعلم له إن حمل على ظاهره، مستندًا.

“The statement of sermonisers or some of them that he hears those who send ṣalawāt on him with his two ears on Friday, I know of no evidence for it if interpreted literally.”

’Allamah Lakhnawi writes: ““From these [fabrications] is what they state when mentioning the Muḥammadan hearing that he hears the blessing of one who sends blessing on him even if far from his grave without an intermediary. This is false, not confirmed by transmission. In fact, the opposite is proven, since the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Whoever sends blessing on me at my grave I hear it and whoever sends blessing on me from afar, Allāh has appointed an angel for it to convey it to me.’…” (al-Athar al-Marfu’rah, p. 46)

** This speculation is confirmed by how the narration is quoted in Shawkānī’s Nayl al-Awṭār (Dār Ibn Qayyim, 4:334)

وَفِي رِوَايَة لِلطَّبَرَانِيِّ «لَيْسَ مِنْ عَبْدٍ يُصَلِّي عَلَيَّ إلَّا بَلَغَنِي صَلَاتُهُ، قُلْنَا: وَبَعْدَ وَفَاتِك؟ قَالَ: وَبَعْدَ وَفَاتِي، إنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ حَرَّمَ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ أَنْ تَأْكُلَ أَجْسَادَ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ»