Istighāthah: The Importance of Definition

November 26, 2018

Istighāthah (taking help) can refer to asking a deceased person to fulfil one’s need. This is the meaning of istighāthah which the Barelwīs favour and the Deobandīs strongly oppose.

However, istighāthah has in the past been used more loosely to refer to other meanings, for example:

  1. Tawassul through deceased personalities. E.g. saying: “O Allah, I ask you through the intermediary of” or “by the blessing of so-and-so” “to fulfil this work of mine.”
  2. Deriving blessing (tabarruk) from the mention of someone. E.g. calling out Yā Muammad as an act of love and showing a connection with the blessed name, without the belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) will hear it directly or that it will necessarily reach him.
  3. Deriving spiritual blessing from the grave of a saint. That is, sitting at the side of the grave and meditating, but not asking for anything from the inhabitant of the grave.
  4. At the grave side, asking the inhabitant of the grave to pray to Allah for the fulfillment of one’s needs.

These are meanings that Deobandīs do not dispute. Deobandīs unanimously accept the first three meanings. The fourth meaning they describe as a matter of legitimate dispute. Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī said about the fourth meaning: “To go close to a grave and say, ‘Oh such and such person, pray for me that the Most High fulfils my work.’ There is a difference among the ‘ulamā’ regarding this. Those who consider it permissible to believe that the dead can hear consider this permissible and those who do not believe that the dead can hear forbid this … However, there is no difference in the hearing of the Prophets (peace be upon them), on account of this they are exempt.” (al-Fatāwā al-Rashīdiyyah, p. 139) About the third meaning, the author of al-Muhannad states: “As for deriving benefit from the spirituality of the great saints and receiving internal effusions from their breasts or their graves, this is correct in the manner recognised by its experts and specialists, but not in the manner widespread amongst the common people.” (al-Muhannad, Dār al-Fatḥ, p. 60)

‘Allāmah Ṣun‘ullāh al-Ḥalabī al-Ḥanafī (d. 1708), a pre-Wahhābī pre-Deobandī Ottoman Ḥanafī jurist based in Ḥalab and Makkah, refuted the practice of calling out to dead saints for help while believing they have taarrufāt (powers of discretion) to help. He wrote a relatively lengthy treatise on the topic called Sayfullāh ‘alā man Kadhaba ‘alā Awliyā’illah, containing many useful discussions, including a crucial distinction between karāmāt (exceptional miracles) and taṣarrufāt (continuous powers). ‘Allāmah Ṣun‘ullāh was a Sunnī who made ta’wīl of the Ṣifāt Khabariyyah like yad (hand) (hence could not have been a “Taymī” or a “Wahhābī”), and supported Tawassul. In explaining what some of the scholars before him meant by the permissibility of “istighāthah”, he said: “What has been said about istighāthah being permitted via the prophets and saints, the intent is only deriving blessing (tabarruk) from mentioning them, and making tawassul through them, not asking for help [directly] from them.” (Sayfullāh ‘alā man Kadhaba ‘alā Awliyā’illah, Dār al-Kitāb wa l-Sunnah, p. 49-50)

Shaykh ‘Abdul Ḥaqq Muḥaddith Dehlawī (1551 – 1642), the celebrated imām of ḥadīth from the subcontinent, has a brief discussion on “istighāthah” in his Arabic commentary on Mishkāt, al-Lama‘āt (Lama‘āt al-Tanqīḥ, Dār al-Nawādir, 7:38-40). What is interesting about this discussion is that although Shaykh ‘Abdul Ḥaqq Muḥaddith Dehlawī uses the terms “istimdād” and “istighāthah” and defends their practice against opponents, it is clear that he is using them in the alternative meanings described above (in particular, meanings 1, 3 and 4). Relevant parts of this discussion are translated below:

As for istimdād from the inhabitants of graves, some jurists have denounced it. If the denunciation is because they have no hearing, knowledge or feeling of the one visiting and his conditions, then this has been proven to be false, and if it is because they have no power or control in that location to help them but are held back from them and occupied in the trials that occur to their souls which distract them from all else, then this is not regarded as always [being the case], especially for the pious who are the friends of Allāh, and thus it is possible for their souls to acquire closeness to the Lord Most Exalted in the Barzakh, and position and power to intercede and make du‘ā and ask for needs to those visiting and making Tawassul through them.

I don’t understand the istimdād and imdād that the denouncer is negating. What we understand is that a needy supplicant, in need of Allāh, makes du‘ā to Allāh and asks his need from His Most Exalted grace, and takes the spirituality of this slave brought close and ennobled by Him Most Exalted as an intermediary, saying: “O Allāh, by the blessing of this slave that You have shown mercy to and have ennobled, and the gentleness and honour You have over him, fulfil my need and grant my request, verily You are the Generous Giver.” Or he calls out to this slave brought close and ennobled by Him Most Exalted, saying: “O slave of Allāh, O friend of His, intercede for me and make du‘ā to your Lord and ask Him to give me my request and fulfil my need.” The giver and the one asked and the one hoped in is the Lord Most High and Most Exalted, and the slave in between is nothing but an intermediary. The one with power, agency and control is none but Him, and the friends of  Allāh are annihilated in His Most Exalted agency, power and control.

That which is transmitted from the saints who experience kashf upon istimdād (i.e. deriving spiritual benefit) from the souls of the accomplished and taking benefit from them, it is more than can be counted, described in their works, well-known amongst them, so there is no need to cite them. (Lama‘āt al-Tanqīḥ, Dār al-Nawādir, 7:38-40)

As can be seen, Shaykh ‘Abdul Ḥaqq is describing only the first, third and fourth meanings of “istighāthah” (a term he also uses in this passage alongside “istimdād”) described above. He is not talking about calling out directly to the deceased, asking for them to fulfil one’s needs. While describing how the ignorant engage in “istighāthah”, however, he states in the same discussion:

Yes, if visitors believe that the inhabitants of graves are independent, powerful actors, without turning to the Divine Presence and taking recourse to it, as believed by the heedless ignorant ones…that is prohibited and forbidden. The practice of the common people has no consideration at all. (Lama‘āt al-Tanqīḥ, Dār al-Nawādir, 7:39)

Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Dehlawī (1746 – 1824) also denounced the belief of the ignorant when engaging in istighāthah. He said in a Farsi answer:

People from this Ummah have gone into excess in the matter of istighāthah from pure souls. That which the ignorant and common people do, and what they believe about them of full independence in every action, this is manifest shirk without doubt. (Fatāwā ‘Azīzī, Maṭba‘ Mujtabā’ī, p. 121)

The Ḥanafī mufti of Baghdad who came a generation before the founders of Deoband, ‘Allāmah Maḥmūd al-Ālūsī (1802 – 1854), author of the celebrated Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, also condemned the istighāthah of the common people*:

People have increased in calling on other than Allah (Exalted is He), from the saints, the living of them and the dead, and other than them, like: ‘O my master so-and-so, give me relief.’ This is not from the permissible [form of] Tawassul at all. It is befitting the condition of a believer to avoid saying this and avoid roaming around its boundary. Some ‘ulamā’ have considered it shirk, and if it is not so, then it is close to it.

I have not seen anyone who utters this but he believes that the one called, whether an absent living person or a dead person, knows the unseen or hears the call and is able, intrinsically or extrinsically, to bring benefit and repel harm; otherwise he would not call him or open his mouth!

In this is a great trial from your Lord! It is obligatory to stay away from this and not seek [help] except from Allāh (Exalted is He), the Strong, the Independent, the Doer of what He wills.

Let it not delude you that the one seeking help from creation often has his need fulfilled and his objective accomplished, for that is a trial and a tribulation from Him (Great and Glorious is He). Often the devil takes the form to the one asking help of the one he asked help from, so he believes it to be a miracle of the one he asked help from. Far, very far! Indeed, it is only the devil misguiding him and turning him astray. (ḥ al-Ma‘ānī, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 7:181)

* Note: Some have claimed that his work, Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, has been tampered with. In fact, there is no tampering in Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī. The team of researchers who worked on the recent Mu’assasat al-Risālah print of Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī relied on a number of manuscripts, the primary manuscript being one copied (by several scribes) directly from the author’s own copy, which was then checked by the author (Sayyid Maḥmūd Ᾱlūsī) himself. The researchers comment: “The manuscripts that we relied on, particularly this primary manuscript, is no different from the widely available prints of the Tafsīr. They are exactly the same. Hence what was said…that the son of Ᾱlūsī was not trustworthy in printing the tafsir of his father does not conform with reality.” (Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 2010, 1:72)

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?

A Gift for Barelwis – Mufti Muhammad Mujaahid

December 6, 2012

Another nice Urdu book uploaded about Barelwism, written by Mufti Muhammad Mujaahid. The book is divided in two parts. The first parts deals with Barelwi books and there extreme beliefs surrounding takfir, awliya’, their insults against our mother Aisha etc. The second part deals with the allegations towards the scholars of Deoband.

A New Book Published by Ml. Ilyas Ghuman in Refutation of Alahazrat

November 4, 2012

This book has been written against the work of Alahazrat, hussam al-haramayn:

He shows how the Barelwi scholars were against the positions of Shah Waliyullah and his family. They clearly disagree with him and call him a so-called Wahhabi!

Munawwar al-Barelwi, Plagiarizing from a Deobandi Author

June 29, 2012

Munawwar al-Barelwi, Plagiarizing from a Deobandi Author

Munawwar, famous for his unfound accusations against the scholars of Deoband and shamelessly defending the mass takfir of Ahmad Raza Khan, wrote a short biography of Nasafi, the author of kanz al-daqa’iq. His article “Imam al-Nasafi, the Unforgotten Author” can be found here:

What he unfortunately did not mention, is the fact that he plagiarized most if not all of the information from the Deobandi author Mawlana Muhammad Hanif Gangohi from his book halaat e musannifeen dars nizami. The book can be read online here:…/n165/mode/1up

I will copy and past the article of Munawwar here. My comments will be in red:

Imam al-Nasafi-The Unforgotten Author
Abu al-Barakat, Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Mahmud al-Nasafi is known as ‘hafiz al-deen’. He was born in the village of ‘Nasaf’ from the area of ‘ma wara’ al-nahr’ known as ‘saghd’. His home town ‘Nasaf’ was also known as ‘Nakhshab’. A famous author, righteous and great Hanafi faqih, al-Nasafi studied under the prominent scholars of his era, such as Muhammad bin Abd al-Sattar Karwari known as ‘the sun amongst the scholars’, Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali Hameed al-Din Aziz and Badr al-Din Khawahir Zadah.

The exact above quote can be found on p. 163 right in the beginning when Mawlana Hanif Gangohi starts with his biography of Nasafi. Munawwar also copied the details surrounding his hometown Nasaf which was also known as Nakshhab and the scholars under which he studied. Munawwar even copied the alqaab of those scholars under the paragraph of “tahsil uloom.”

Did Imam al-Nasafi narrate the Ziyadat from Itabi?

The author of Jawahir Mudhee’ah mentioned that al-Nasafi took fiqh from Karwari and narrated the Ziyadat from Ahmad bin Utbi. Mulla Ali Qari concurs on this view. However, Kafawi mentions that it is not possible that al-Nasafi narrated the Ziyadat from Utbi since Utbi died in 589h and al-Nasafi died in 710h or 711h.

Again, the same above text can be exactly found in the Urdu of Ml. Hanif Gangohi book under the paragraph of Sahib Jawahir ki Ghalti. The same biographers and dates are mentioned. He added his own title and the discussion further is taken from Ml. Hanif Gangohi.

His status amongst the jurists

Ibn Kamal Pasha considered him a jurist of the sixth rank i.e. from those jurists who have authority to isolate the weak reports from the stronger ones. Others have however upheld that al-Nasafi was one step away from absolut ijtihad, namely, a ‘mujtahid fi al-madhab’. Not just that, they considered him the final mujtahid in the madhab. In his commentary on the Musallam al-Thubut and on Tahreer al-Usul, Bahr al-Ulum mentions that the latter opinion is not correct thus not reliable.

The exact same introduction, the difference of opinion amongst the scholars about the status of Nasafi, the names of the books and their verdicts can be found under the paragraph Sahib Kanz ka Fiqhi Maqam. Ml. Haneef Gangohi immediately starts with Ibn Kamal Pasha and straight after the sentence he mentions the difference of opinions. The paragraph of Munawwar is fully identical with that of Ml. Haneef.

His year of death
There is controvesy on this issue amongst the scholars. Shaykh Qawwam al-Din Ittifaqi, Mulla Ali Qari and the author of Kashf al-Zunun have held that al-Nasafi died in 701h. Allamah Qasim bin Qutlubugha held that he died after 710h [in his book entitled: al-Asl fi bayani al-wasl wa al-fasl]. Hamawi upheld that he died in 711h on a Fridayh night. Furthermore, Ittiqani mentioned that he passed away in a place called ‘Ayzaj’ and was buried in ‘al-Jalal’. And Allah knows best.

Again, Munawwar took the same sequence in his article as Ml. Hanif Gangohi. After the discussion of the status of Nasafi as a mujtahid he follows with his year of death. Now again, the exact same order of the sentences, the names of the scholars and the ultimate verdict are precisely mentioned by Ml. Gangohi.

His works
Imam Nasafi composed many works that are until today taught and studied worldwide. The renowned Dars-e-Nizami course has always contributed to the indespensible works of Nasafi. Here is a list of some of them;
1- al-Wafi, and its commentary al-Kafi in the branches of law ‘furu’
2- Kanz al-Daqa’iq. This work proves to be an excellent contribution of Nasafi to fiqh. It is originally an abridgement of his ‘al-Wafi’.
3- Matn al-Manar. Again, an undoubtedly comprehensive book unforgotten in Usul al-fiqh.
4- Kashf al-Asrar. His personal commentary on the Manar.
5- Sharh Muntakhab al-Hussami. A commentary on the famous text in Usul al-Fiqh.
6- Musaffa, his commentary on sharh Manzumah Nasafiyah
7- al-Mustasfa sharh al-Fiqh al-Na’fi
8- Sharh al-Fiqh al-Nafi’
9- I’timad al-I’tiqad, his commentary on al-Umdah
10- Fadha’il al-A’mal
11- Tafseer Madarik al-Tanzeel.

In the exact same order, Ml. Hanif Gangohi has mentioned the exact same list of books. Munawwar even copied even the comment “in the branches of law ‘furu’” from Ml. Hanif.

Did he compose a commentary on al-Hidaya?
The author of Kashf al-Zunun listed al-Nasafi to have written a commetary on the famous ‘al-Hidayah’ in the Hanafi school. Taqiy al-Din, in his Tabaqat, mentioned that Bakht ibn Shahnah stated, it is not known whether al-Nasafi has a commentary on al-Hidayah. Moreover, Allamah Ittiqani, in Gayat al-Bayan, mentioned that Imam al-Nasafi did intend to write a commentary on al-Hidaya but Taj al-Sharee’ah requested that he shouldn’t. This is why he then composed the book al-Wafi similar to al-Hidaya and then wrote a commentary to it entitled ‘al-Kafi’.

Again, Ml. Hanif Gangohi mentions the exact same details. Ml. Hanif starts with “Sahib Kashf al-Zunun who mentioned also a sharh of hidaya.” Then he mentions all those names of authors and books which Munawwar also highlighted!

His discipline in Kanz al-Daqa’iq
Imam al-Nasafi sticks to two main points in this work;

1- sticking to the issues of the Zahir al-Riwayah,
2- and not surpassing the ‘mufta biha’ sayngs of the three imams i.e. Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani.

However, there are some sayings in the Kanz that are not from the Zahir al-Riwayah and are not from the ‘mufta bihi’ of the three imams. But, how is it exactly possible to find out that such and such issue is not from the Zahir al-Riwayah or the verdicts f the imams? A contemporary scholar, Muhammad Haneef Gangohi has collected those particular issues in the opening of his commentary on the Kanz entitled: ‘Ma’din al-Haqa’iq’.

Again, the above text can be found in the book of Ml. Hanif Gangohi under the chapter “Kanz al-Daqa’iq awr is ke ghayr zahir al-riwaya aur ghayr mufta biha masa’il.”
The sentence “and not surpassing the ‘mufta biha’ sayings of the three imams” can be found in Urdu on p. 164. Ml. Hanif himself starts the discussion about those opinions which are not from the zahir al-riwaya. He himself refers then to his own book Ma’din al-Haqa’iq!
Even the question that Munawwar poses “But, how is it exactly possible to find out that such and such issue is not from the Zahir al-Riwayah or the verdicts f the imams” is plagiarized from Mawlana Hanif since he poses the exact same question to the reader!

The commentaries on Kanz al-Daqa’iq
Over the centuries, many scholars such as Aiyni, Halbi, Kiramni and others have commented on the Kanz but the exposition, clarity and comprehensivenss of Ibn Nujaym’s ‘al-Bahr al-Ra’iq’ is unique in this area.

A list of commentaries on the Kanz:

1- al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, Zayn al-Abideen, known as Ibn Nujaym, d.970h
2- Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq, Uthman bin Ali al-Zayla’i, d.743h
3- Ramz al-Haqa’iq, Badr al-Din al-Ayni, d.855h
4- al-Matlab al-Fa’iq, Badr al-Din Isa al-Diri
5- al-Nahr al-Fa’iq, Siraj al-Din, known as Ibn Nujaym, d.1005h
6- Mustakhlis al-Haqa’iq, Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Qari
7- al-Fawa’id fi Halli al-Masa’ili wa al-Qawa’id, Mustafa bin Bali, known as Bali Zadah
8- Fat’h Masaliki al-Ramz fi Sharhi Manasiki al-Kanz, Abdurahman Isa al-Umri
9- Sharh al-Kanz al-Daqa’iq, Mulla Miskeen
10-Sharh al-Kanz, Ibn Shahnah al-Halabi, d.921h
11- Sharh al-Kanz, al-Khitab bin Abi al-Qasim al-Qurrah Hasari, d.730h
12- Sharh al-Kanz, Shams al-Din Hasari
13- Sharh al-Kanz, Zayn al-Abideen al-Ayni, d.864h
14- Sharh al-Kanz, Ibn Ganim al-Maqdisi, d.1004h
15- Sharh al-Kanz, Qawam al-Din Kirmani, d.748h
16- Sharh al-Kanz, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Umar al-Salihi, d.950h
17- Sharh al-Kanz, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Dhiya al-Makki, d.858h
18- Hashiyah Kanz al-Daqa’iq, Muhammad Ahsan Siddiqui Nanutwi, d.1312h
19- Multaqit al-Daqa’iq, Abu al-Ma’arif Muhhamd Inanyatullah shah
20- Hashiyah Kanz al-Daqa’iq, Muhmmad I’zaz Ali, d.1374h
21- Zaheer al-Haqa’iq, Zaheer Ahmad Sahwani, d.1361h (urdu)
22- Ma’din al-Haqa’iq, Muhammad Haneef (urdu)
23- Persion translation by Shah Ahlullah, abrother of waliyullah al-Dehlvi.
24-Tuhfat al-Ajam fi Fiqhi al-Imami al-A’zam, Muhammad Sultan Khan (urdu)
25- Ahsan al-Masa’il, Muhammd Ahsan Siddiqui (urdu)
26- Zaheer al-Haqa’iq, Zaheer Ahmad Zaheeri Sahswani (urdu)
27- Mi’yar al-Haqa’iq, Dhiya al-Din Muhammad al-Husayni (persian)

Munawwar copied again the same list of commentaries mentioned by Ml. Hanif Gangohi. He did not even hesitate to include Deobandi authors in the list, like that of Ml. Ahsan Siddiqi Nanotwi and Ml. Izaz Ali! Ml. Hanif Gangohi starts under the paragraph which he titled kanz al-daqa’iq awr is ki shuruhat. Ml Hanif mentions the exact part as Munawwar that many scholars have written commentaries of Kanz, like Halabi, Ayni and Kirmani. Even though Ml. Hanif mentions others like Maqdisi and Zayla’I, the fact that Munawwar mentions those men and then starts with mentioning the best sharh and the list of commentaries is no coincidence. Ml Hanif does the same and mentions that the best sharh remains al-bahr al-ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym and cites a poem. His list of commentaries has the same order of Munawwar. He even left out the dates of the death of those scholars at number 6 to 9 because it was not mentioned by Ml. Hanif.

Ml. Hanif listed 25 commentaries. Up until number 20 Munawwar follows the same titles in the same order. He put the sharh of Inayatullah before Hashiya of Ml. Izaz Ali. Then he mentions the same titles except that Munawwar mentioned the Zahir al-Haqa’iq for a second time at number 26. Munawwar seems to have added another last title in Persian. He calls the sharh of Bali Zadah as Fawa’id (number 7) while the word is dara’id.
Conclusion: Munawwar plagiarized the above written article from a Deobandi author Ml. Hanif Gangohi, a scholar who graduated from Dar al-Ulum Deoband. Munawwar follows the same order as Ml. Hanif. Munawwar mentions the same discussions, the same details, the same biographers and titles of books, in the exact same order like it is mentioned in the book of Ml. Hanif. He even copied sentences from Ml. Hanif while the reader thinks they were his own words.

Munawwar should have referred to the book of the Deobandi scholar Ml. Hanif but failed to do so. However, we forgive him because the Barelwis are more busy with takfir and spreading hatred amongst the Muslims, while the Deobandis are publishing valuable books.

Alhamdulillah, the fayz of Deoband has spread to such an extent that even Barelwis cannot move further without studying the works of the Deobandis.

Translation of Nur wa Bashar

April 20, 2012

English translation of Nur wa Bashar by Shaykh Sarfaraz Khan Safdar

Mutaali’a Barelwiyat Online

March 20, 2012

Therenowned work of  8 volumes called “A Study of Barelwism” written by the great scholar Dr. Khalid Mahmood has just been put online. This is the download link:

The book is a must read for those who want to deepen their study on the Barelwi sect. Dr. Khalid Mahmud was branded by Mufti Zarwali, the founder of ahsan al-‘ulum, as “the greatest Deobandi scholar” alive.