Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar: Barelwī ‘Ulamā’ are Kāfirs but not their Laymen

January 25, 2019

Mawlānā Muḥammad Rashīd, teacher of Ḥadīth at Dārul ‘Ulūm Madīnah, and student of Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar (1914 – 2009)*, said:

I once asked Ḥaḍrat Imām e Ahl e Sunnat [Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar]: ‘What is the ruling on Barelwīs? What belief should we hold concerning them?’ He replied: ‘The Molvī and Pīr kinds of people amongst them, on account of blasphemous beliefs, are pure Kāfirs and Mushriks. Ṣalāh behind them is undoubtedly invalid. However, we do not make takfīr of the common people because they are completely ignorant. They should be made to understand, but if despite being made to understand, they knowingly stay firm on blasphemous idolatrous beliefs, then takfīr will also be made of them – but otherwise, not.’

In his tafsīr, Dhakhīrat al-Jinān, Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar said:

The noble Fuqahā’ have said that the one who says the souls of mashāyikh are present and knowing is a Kāfir – even if they pray ṣalāh, keep fasts, perform ḥajj, offer qurbānī and fiṭrānah, they are pure Kāfirs. This is the belief of Barelwī Molvīs and Pīrs. Their close attendants, the extreme type of people, also have this belief. The remaining helpless commoners are ignorant. Their Molvīs, Pīrs and the extreme Barelwīs amongst the commoners regard Prophets as ḥāḍir nāẓir, and regard saints and martyrs as ḥāḍir nāẓir also – all of this is Kufr. The class of noble Fuqahā’ is a very precautious class. They are the ones who said that if a person makes a statement that has 100 possible meanings, 99 are blasphemous and one is not, don’t call him a Kāfir because his intent may be the non-blasphemous meaning. A one percent possibility even has not been overlooked. What greater precaution can there be than this? Despite this precaution, this very class of noble Fuqahā’ are unanimous that those who regard the souls of saints as being ḥāḍir nāẓir and ‘ālim al-ghayb are pure Kāfirs. These are not peripheral issues that can simply be ignored.

* For more on Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar see here and here.


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.


Aḥmad Riḍā Khān is Kāfir Says Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī (1868 – 1951)

January 11, 2019

Faqīh al-Ummat Muftī Maḥmūd al-Ḥasan Gangohī (1907 – 1996) reports:

Ḥaḍrat Thānawī (Allāh have mercy on him) said that the Akābir did not make Takfīr of them [Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī and co]. However, Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Ṣāḥib Chāndpūrī (Allāh have mercy on him) (1868 – 1951)* said: “I make Takfīr of them”. This is because those things which necessitate Takfīr did not come before the Akābir but did come before the aforementioned Mawlānā. Thus, he made Takfīr. (Malfūẓāt Faqīh al-Ummat**, 1:1051)

It may also be that the Akābir believed that despite being in and of itself Kufr, there was enough scope for Ta’wīl in Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s blasphemous beliefs*** to avert Takfīr from him (see: Khayr al-Fatāwā, 1:148), while Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī felt there was no scope for Ta’wīl.

* He was a contemporary of Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī, only a few years his junior. He was a sayyid from the descendants of Sayyid ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jilānī. Thus, he would at times sign his treatises with: “Muḥammad Murtaḍā, the descendent of the Lion of God (ibn Sher Khudā), ‘Alī al-Murtaḍā” (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu). He was admitted to Dār al-‘Ulūm Deoband in the year 1297 H (1880 CE), where he studied under Mawlānā Ya‘qūb Nānotwī, Shaykh al-Hind, Mawlānā Dhu l-Fiqār and Mawlānā Manfa‘at ‘Alī amongst others. Having completed his studies at Deoband with distinction, he travelled to Gangoh and repeated the Dora Ḥadīth (study of the books of ḥadīth) under Mawlānā Gangohī, and acquired his company. He had a passion for the rational sciences so travelled to Kānpūr and studied advanced texts on the rational sciences under Mawlānā Aḥmad Ḥasan Amrohī. While at Kānpūr, he spent time in the company of Shaykh Faḍl al-Raḥmān Ganjmurādabādī.

His father was a renowned ḥakīm of his area, so he returned to his hometown of Chāndpūr in the Bijnor district, and trained as a ḥakīm under his father. During this time, he travelled with his father and brother for his first ḥajj, where he spent time in the company of Ḥājī Imdādullāh al-Makkī.

He was a skilled polemicist and debater. He wrote against the Arya Samaj, Qādiyānīs and Barelwīs. In connection with responding to the Qādiyānīs, ‘Allāmah al-Kawtharī referred to him as follows: “the prominent teacher, Mawlānā Sayyid Murtaḍā al-Hindī.” (Maqālāt al-Kawtharī, al-Maktaba al-Tawfīqiyyah, p. 324) He taught at a couple of madrasas and also took up a teaching post at Dār al-‘Ulūm Deoband for some time.

He always felt it necessary to be under the guidance of a spiritual mentor, and hence he took Mawlānā Gangohī as his first guide, followed by Shaykh al-Hind, Mawlānā ‘Abd al-Raḥim Rāipūrī and Mawlānā Muḥammad ‘Alī Mongirī. Eventually, he gave bay‘ah to his contemporary, associate and friend, Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī, from whom he received khilāfah. He lived a life of piety, dhikr and ‘ibādah, and passed away reciting the kalimah out loud.

** https://ia802801.us.archive.org/19/items/Malfoozat-Faqeeh-ul-Ummat-Urdu/Malfoozat-Faqeeh-ul-Ummat-Vol-1.pdf

*** Like his belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was given knowledge of the precise timing of the Hour; and was given knowledge of every minute detail about the created realm from the beginning of creation till the Resurrection; and that he was empowered to accomplish anything he so wishes in creation. According to a fatwa from Mazahirul Uloom, Saharanpur:

The word “Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah” is applied to the Ash’aris and the Maturidis. Ahmad Rada Khan Barelwi and his group are in no way connected to these groups. The beliefs that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had the knowledge of the complete unseen (‘ilm al-ghayb kulli) as held by Ahmad Rada Khan and that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was entrusted with all powers of disposition are not held by the Ash’aris and Maturidis, has not been mentioned by anyone in the books of ‘aqa’id, and is not mentioned in any way in their books. Both these issues are clearly against the Qur’an and hadiths; these have been created by the Barelwis. If anyone regards the Barelwi sect to be from among the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah, then this is his clear error.


Darul Ulum Haqqaniyyah: Belief in Ilm Jami Ma Kana wa Ma Yakun for Creation is Kufr

January 11, 2019

According to the official fatwā collection of Dārul ‘Ulūm Ḥaqqāniyyah* (known as the “Second Deoband”):

Whoever has the belief regarding the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) that he knew everything that occurred and that will occur [in creation], he has opposed categorical texts. Thus, one who holds this belief is a Kāfir. He must renew his īmān and if married renew his nikāḥ. (Fatāwā Ḥaqqāniyyah, 1:160)

Attributing such complete, detailed and exhaustive knowledge of the created universe to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is amongst the most cherished beliefs of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī and his followers.

* Founded by Mawlānā ‘Abdul Ḥaqq (1912 – 1988), graduate of Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband, and student of Shaykh al-Islām Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī, Mawlānā I‘zaz ‘Alī Amrohī, Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī, Mawlānā Ibrāhīm Balyāwī and others.


The Blasphemy and Kufr of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī According to Barelwī Standards

January 6, 2019

In an academic refutation of Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī, Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī explained that it is not correct to affirm certain kinds of worldly knowledge (on which virtue does not depend) for the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) merely based on the fact that others that are inferior to him, like the Angel of Death or Satan, have acquired this knowledge. In fact, to attribute such knowledge to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that has not been proven to have been acquired by him would be to affirm non-granted, intrinsic knowledge for him, which is shirk. (Barāhīn-e-Qāi‘ah, p. 54-7)

Based on this explanation, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī ruled that Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī had insulted the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and had affirmed more knowledge for Satan than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He further implicates Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī for having endorsed Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s work. The allegation that this is an insult and that it amounts to holding the blasphemous belief that Satan is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has been responded to in detail by Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī himself and other scholars. (See, for example, The Decisive Debate, p. 41-60).

The irony is that Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī in his work Anwār-e-Sāi‘ah, which was the text that was refuted in Barāhīn-e-Qāi‘ah, explicitly states:

The supporters of the gatherings of Mīlād (meaning, himself and those of his persuasion) do not claim that Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present in all places of the world, pure and impure, and in religious and irreligious gatherings, while it is established that the Angel of Death and Iblīs are present in far more places, pure and impure, and of disbelief and non-disbelief.

A PDF of the work can be found at the following link:

https://ia600700.us.archive.org/33/items/AnwarESatiyaByAllamaMuhammadAbdulSamiSaharanpuri_201411/Anwar%20e%20Satiya%20by%20Allama%20Muhammad%20Abdul%20Sami%20saharanpuri.pdf

And this passage can be found on page 254. The Urdu is as follows:

Ahl e Mefil e Mīlād to Rasūlullāh allallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam ke zamīn kī tamām pāk wa nāpāk jagah aur majālis mazhabī wa ghayr mazhabī mein āzir hone ka dawā nehein kurte jubkeh malak al-mawt aur iblīs kā iss se bihī ziyādah tar pāk wa nāpāk aur kufr wa ghayr kufr ke maqāmāt mein āzir hona pāyā jāta hein

In this passage, Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī explicitly states that Satan is present in more places of the world than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He is thus saying that Satan has a greater presence than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)! If Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s statement is blasphemy and kufr, Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī’s statement is undoubtedly blasphemy and kufr.*

Yet, we find that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī endorsed this work! His endorsement can be found on pages 381-386 of the above edition. He says: “I happened to have a look at some of [Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī’s] pure speech, like Dāfi‘ al-Awhām, at al-Qulūb and Anwār-e-Sāi‘ah, the contents of which I found to reflect their titles. May Allāh give the author the best of rewards.” (ibid. p. 386)

The challenge Barelwīs face is that if they are to insist on Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s false takfīr of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī, it would backfire and they would have to make takfīr of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself! But if they reject Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s takfīr of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī, then they would be rejecting a pillar of Barelwism. A perfect catch-22.

* An important distinction should be noted between the statements of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī and Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī.

Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī does not say “Satan is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)” as was imputed to him by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī. His discussion was clearly about the knowledge of certain worldly items (like geography, people’s circumstances). In such matters which having knowledge of implies no extra virtue or merit, Satan was given a greater awareness. But in matters on which virtue and excellence depend, there is no one more learned than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).

In Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī’s statement, however, there is no such distinction. A clear statement is made that Satan is present “in far more places” than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)! Thus, according to Barelwī understanding, he has affirmed a quality of perfection to a greater quantity for Satan than for the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Based on their principles, there can be no doubt that this is blasphemy and kufr.

UPDATE (09/01/19):

Abu Hasan, the fraud and liar*, has responded to the above**. Ignoring the typical insults, his response boils down to: The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) chooses to not be present at such lowly places. In short, although Mawlānā ‘Abdus Samī‘ Rāmpūrī explicitly drew a comparison between the Satan and the Prophet, and said Satan is “present in far more places” than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), this is not blasphemy or an insult because being present at such places is unbefitting the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). So, what we establish from this is that Abu Hasan Barelwi, the fraud and liar, believes that it would not be blasphemous to affirm an apparent quality of perfection (i.e. being present) for Satan to a greater quantity than the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). In fact, to Abu Hasan, it may even be a virtue that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not present at such lowly places while the Satan is.

Given this admission, it will be far easier for a Barelwī to make sense of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s discussion.

As the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is a human being and a creation, his knowledge was acquired and was not intrinsic. Hence, he does not possess all knowledge by his very nature, but acquired knowledge via revelation. In fact, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) asked protection from knowledge that is of no benefit. (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim) This would undoubtedly include knowledge of certain details of the world and of detailed descriptions and circumstances of people. Such lowly knowledge does not befit the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) but does befit Satan whose preoccupation is to know about the world and the detailed circumstances of people. (Despite this, Barelwīs affirm such lowly knowledge for the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).)

Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ wrote:

فأما ما يتعلق منها بأمر الدنيا، فلا يشترط في حقالأنبياء العصمة من عدم معرفة الأنبياء ببعضها، أو اعتقادها على خلاف ما هي عليه، ولا وصم عليهم فيه.. إذ هممهم متعلقة بالآخرة وأنبائها.. وأمر الشريعة وقوانينها.. وأمور الدنيا تضادها.

– بخلاف غيرهم من أهل الدنيا الذبن «يعلمون ظاهرا من الحياة الدنيا وهم عن الآخرة هم غافلون …ولكنه لا يقال إنهم لا يعلمون شيئا من أمر الدنيا فإن ذلك يؤدي إلى الغفلة والبله وهم النزهون عنه

“As for that which is connected from these [knowledges] with the affair of the world, protection is not a condition with respect to prophets, in that the prophets are unaware of some of it or hold a belief about it contrary to reality. There is no blemish on them in this, since their aspirations are connected to the next life and its events, and the matter of Sharī‘ah and its laws, while the matters of the world are contrary to these, as distinguished from others of the people of the world who ‘know the outward of the worldly life and are heedless of the next life.’ (Qur’ān, 30:7)…Although it may not be said that they know nothing of the affair of the world because that will amount to ignorance and foolishness which they are free of.” (al-Shifā’, Jā’izah Dubai, p. 631-2)

He makes the same point in another place of the work with reference to the ḥadīth, “You are more aware of the affairs of your world.” (al-Shifā’, p. 723) Then he makes the general point:

فمثل هذا وأشباهه من أمور الدنيا التي لا مدخل فيها لعلم ديانة، ولا اعتقادها، ولا تعليمها يجوز عليه فيها ما ذكرناه.. إذ ليس في هذا كله نقيصة ولا محطة، وإنما هي أمور اعتيادية يعرفها من جربها وجعلها همه. وشغل نفسه بها والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مشحون القلب بمعرفة الربوبية، ملآن الجوانح بعلوم الشريعة، قصيد البال بمصالح الأمة الدينية والدنيوية. ولكن هذا إنما يكون في بعض الأمور ويجوز في النادر. وفيما سبيله التدقيق في حراسة الدنيا واستثمارها، لا في الكثير المؤذن بالبله والغفلة.

“In such things and their likes from the matters of the world which have no involvement in religious knowledge, belief or education, what we mentioned is possible for him, as none of this is deficiency or diminishment. Rather, they are ordinary things known to those who have experience of them and make it their concern and occupy their minds with them. The Prophet’s (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) heart is filled with knowledge of the divine, his sides filled with knowledges of Sharī‘ah, his mind restrained by the religious and worldly interests of the Ummah. But this will only be in some affairs…not in many, which would signify stupidity or ignorance.” (ibid. p. 724)

Hence, understood in this light, what Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī said is in fact in honour of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)’s blessed knowledge: it is free of the nonsense and useless things that occupy the mind of Satan. This is precisely what he states in al-Muhannad: “The concealment of some insignificant particular details from the Prophet (upon him be peace) due to his inattention to them does not cause any defect to his (upon him be peace) being the most learned once it is established that he is the most knowledgeable of the noble sciences that are fitting to his lofty station, just as cognizance of most of those insignificant things due to the intensity of Iblīs’s attention to them does not cause glory and perfection of knowledge in him, since virtue and excellence do not hinge on this. Thus, it is not correct to say that Iblīs is more knowledgeable than the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) just as it is not correct to say about a child who knows some particulars that he is more knowledgeable than an erudite scholar deeply immersed in the sciences, from whom those particulars are hidden.” (al-Muhannad, p. 71)

The only issue that remains is Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī referring to the belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has such detailed worldly knowledge as “shirk”. The reason it is described as shirk as clear from the context of his discussion in Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah is that to affirm such knowledge based only on a false analogy implies the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) acquired the knowledge without it being granted to him, or without any intermediary, but just of his own. Such a belief is shirk. For a fuller explanation, see The Decisive Debate***, p. 60-3, where this objection is discussed. The sentence that Abu Hasan quoted, in context, means the following (with Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī’s explanation in parentheses):

The upshot is, it should be considered, that upon seeing the condition of Satan and the Angel of Death [meaning, seeing that they have acquired knowledge of the places of the world as is understood from the evidences of Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sami‘ Sahib], to affirm encompassing knowledge of the world [i.e. intrinsic knowledge] for the Pride of the World (Allah bless him and grant him peace) against decisive texts, without evidence, and purely from corrupt analogy [meaning, based on the logic that since the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is superior to Satan and Angel of Death, due to his superiority, all knowledge of the world will self-generate in him], if it is not shirk then what part of faith is it?

This expanse for Satan and the Angel of Death [meaning, with Allah’s command having knowledge of many places of the world] is proven by text [meaning, those texts with Mawlawi ‘Abd al-Sam Sahib presented]; the expansive knowledge of the Pride of the World [meaning, intrinsic knowledge because by corrupt analogy and pure reason only this is established, and this is understood from the context of Hazrat Mawlana’s discussion], which decisive text is there due to which all texts are rejected and one shirk is established? (Barāhīn e Qāṭi‘ah, p. 55)

One should also take note of the dishonesty of Abu Hasan’s translation where he says: “proving such encompassing knowledge of the earth for the Pride of the World”. The liar and fraud should be asked, where is the word “such” in the Urdu passage?

* See for examples:

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/another-example-of-the-distortions-of-abu-hasan/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/deceptions-and-distortions-of-abu-hasan/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/another-example-of-abu-hasans-distortions/

** http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/deobandis-charge-blasphemy-on-mawlana-abdul-samiy-rampuri.14263/#post-67098

*** https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-decisive-debate-mawlana-manzur-numani/

UPDATE 2 (09/01/19):

Another point worth bearing in mind is that Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s discussion is in line with what the Ḥanafī Fuqahā’ (whom he quotes) had written. In fact, we find a striking parallel. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah:

A [man] weds [a woman] without witnesses, saying: “I make the Messenger of Allāh and Angels witness”, he has become a Kāfir, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb, as distinguished from his saying: “I make the angel on the left shoulder and the angel on the right shoulder witness”, he would not become Kāfir, because they are aware [of that]. (al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah, 6:325)

In al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī (Idārat al-Qur’ān, 7:407), the same mas’alah is found ending with: “because they are aware of that as they are not absent from him.”

The pseudo-Ḥanafī Barelwī might question this and object: They have considered it kufr to ascribe this knowledge to the Messenger of Allāh but not to the Kirāman Kātibīn, whereas if ascribing it to one is kufr it should equally be kufr to ascribe it to the other!

But, of course, this is due to a (intentional or unintentional) misunderstanding. It is kufr (and shirk) when the knowledge is ascribed to an individual for whom it is not proven that he has acquired that knowledge (as it would entail ascribing intrinsic knowledge of ghayb for him). It is not kufr if the knowledge is ascribed to an individual for whom it is proven that he had acquired that knowledge.

In the same way Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī says to affirm such extensive unbeneficial knowledge of insignificant worldly matters to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) based on a corrupt analogy is shirk, because it is to affirm intrinsic knowledge for him. It is not shirk when affirmed for Satan because it is proven that he is present at such places and witnessing.

See how the pseudo-Ḥanafī Barelwī has inverted reality, and has made what is not kufr kufr, and what is kufr (i.e. affirming detailed knowledge of all things in creation for the Prophet) an acceptable belief?

Note also that the pseudo-Sunnī Barelwī religion, which is based on hawā and not ittibā, will fluctuate from Barelwī to Barelwī. Thus, Abu Hasan Barelwī is supporting the idea that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not present at such filthy and dirty places of the world; however, Barelwī debater, Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharwī, states that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present in such filthy places, but we just shouldn’t say he is! (Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, p. 279, 282)


Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī’s Sayf e Yamānī Bar Makā’id Firqah e RazāKhānī

December 29, 2018

Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī (1905 – 1997) engaged the Barelwī menace early on in his career. One of the classical works that was a product of these early endeavours was one published in 1930 CE (1349 H), called Sayf e Yamānī bar Makā’id Firqah e RazāKhānī (The Yemeni Sword on the Deceptions of the RazaKhānī Sect). The work is available here:

https://ia800809.us.archive.org/20/items/SAIFEYAMANI_201710/SAIF_E_YAMANI.pdf

This is a thorough and detailed refutation of Barelwī allegations against the Deobandī school and its elders. It was written in response to a booklet called ‘Aqā’id Wahhābiyya Deobandiyya published towards the end of 1347 H (1929 CE), the author being a certain ‘Azīz Aḥmad Kānpūrī. The booklet was written in response to a write-up of Mawlānā Nu‘mānī himself called Kashf al-Ḥijāb. Thus, someone from Kanpur sent a copy to Mawlānā Nu‘mānī. Mawānā Nu‘mānī felt no need to respond since it was essentially a regurgitation of typical Barelwī allegations which had been answered time and again, but then the Barelwī author, ‘Azīz Aḥmad Kānpūrī, began to claim that Mawlānā Nu‘mānī was unable to answer. Thus, to allay this false impression and provide readers with an objective assessment of the evidences and the claims being made, Sayf e Yamānī was written.

Mawlānā Nu‘mānī’s detailed response to Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn called Fayṣlah Kun Munāẓarah (1933) has been translated and published online. See here:

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-decisive-debate-mawlana-manzur-numani/

Parts of his response to allegations against Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in a work called Ḥaḍrat Shāh Ismā’īl Shahīd aur Mu‘ānidīn Ahl e Bid‘at kā Ilzāmāt (1957) have also been summarised. See 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/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/shah-ismail-calling-the-prophet-a-brother/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/shah-ismail-considering-the-prophet-lower-than-a-shoemaker/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/refuting-the-allegation-that-shah-ismail-shahid-denied-the-preservation-of-the-prophets-body/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/shah-ismail-the-belief-in-shafaah/

Sayf e Yamānī was written before both of these works, and was endorsed by several leading scholars.

While recounting his encounters with Ḥakīm al-Ummah Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) in his autobiography Taḥdith e Ni‘mat, Mawlānā Nu‘mānī describes how he had apprised Ḥaḍrat Thānawī of the work before it was published in order to receive his feedback. Since this discussion is beneficial, we will produce a translation of the entire section below:

The writer of these lines [Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī] wrote a comprehensive book in response to all the famous allegations and objections of the Barelwīs under the name Sayf e Yamānī. It included responses to several allegations and objections returning to Ḥaḍrat Thānawī, but the discussion on the dream of a devotee of Ḥaḍrat from Punjab was very detailed. Based on this [dream] a very serious propaganda was being made on the part of the Barelwīs against Ḥaḍrat on a wide scale, and hearing it many unthinking devotees were also becoming concerned on account of their ignorance. From special assistance and Tawfīq from Allāh Ta‘ālā the discussion in Sayf e Yamānī was such that in my view it was very satisfactory and the matter became completely clear from it. I had great satisfaction in this discussion, and was very happy that Allāh Ta‘ālā had given me the Tawfīq to [prepare] it.

Upon preparing this book Sayf e Yamānī, my heart wished that despite having no acquaintance with Ḥaḍrat Thānawī, I would request that he inspect this discussion and let me know his opinion. I had heard that Ḥaḍrat Ḥakīm al-Ummat very much disliked unnecessary length and forced formality even when writing [to someone]. Anything that is to be said or written should be done in a clear and direct manner using brief words according to the need. I sent a copy of Sayf e Yamānī to Ḥaḍrat via post and also wrote a letter, the content of which after honourable address and the sunnah greeting was:

“I have not acquired the privilege of being acquainted with Ḥaḍrat. Thus, Ḥaḍrat is probably completely unaware of me. I was a student of Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband from a few years ago. Currently I am teaching some lessons at Madrasah Islamia at Amroha. Understanding it to be important Dīnī work, I have undertaken some work with the assistance and Tawfīq of Allāh Ta‘ālā to respond and refute the torrent of fitnah that the Barelwī group have raised against our Akābir. In connection to this I am currently writing a book. One copy I have sent in [your] service by post. If there is room within Ḥaḍrat’s schedule and engagement, and no disruption, I would hope that Ḥaḍrat Wālā would inspect the book or at least only the discussion which is regarding the famous dream of an individual in connection to Ḥaḍrat, which is from page so-and-so to page so-and-so of the book. Please inspect it and if not against your principles, and there is no kind of burden or disruption, then [I request] Ḥaḍrat to inform me of his respected view. If there is no room in his schedule, or inspection will cause disruption for whatever reason, I am not at all insisting. In this case, there is also no need to take the trouble to return the book. I have sent it in the service of Ḥaḍrat with only the intention of a gift. If accepted it will be a cause of favour and happiness for me. If not, please offer me any attention.”

This was my first ever letter in Ḥaḍrat Ḥakīm al-Ummat’s service. I had also put an envelope for a response. After four or five days Ḥaḍrat’s response came. According to his general principles he wrote the answer on the very same letter. The part of this letter that I remember that deserves mention is:

“Having read your letter, I was delighted by the fact that you wrote your need clearly and directly without any forced formality, and you kept in mind my schedule, principles and temperament. Because of this, du‘ā [for you] emerged from the heart. I am not unfamiliar with you. I keep hearing of you and your activities. Thus, I have a distant connection and love for you, and keep making du‘ā for you. To give you peace of mind, I write that I wholeheartedly accept your gift.

“I opened the book with the intention of glancing at it here and there, and to read in full the discussion related to the dream for which you wrote specifically. But when I started reading the book, I did not wish to leave out any part of it, and for as long as I did not complete the entire book, I did not engage in any other activities in between besides my established necessary activities. I was very happy with the entire book. Jazākumullāh khayrā! I read the discussion on the dream specifically with greater deliberation. Without pretence, I say that if I had myself tried I would not have been able to give such satisfying a clarification. May Allāh grant blessing in your life, knowledge and practice.”

Ḥaḍrat, according to his normal practice, wrote this on my very letter. It is unfortunate that this letter has not been preserved. But I remember the content of my letter and these parts of Ḥaḍrat’s response well, and I write this with the assistance of my memory. Apart from this, Ḥaḍrat wrote a short endorsement separately, which was published together with the book at that time. (Taḥdīth e Ni‘mat, p. 143-6)

Mawlānā Nu‘mānī continues to recount several occasions thereafter where he met with Ḥaḍrat Thānawī in person, beginning from a first meeting in 1931.

Endorsements

Some of the notable endorsers of the work are as follows:

  1. Ḥakīm al-Ummah Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943). He writes: “I have seen the treatise Sayf e Yamānī in full which was written in response to objections of some of the Ahl al-Ahwā’…May Allāh give the author excellent recompense and make the treatise a means of guidance.” (Sayf e Yamānī, p. 3)
  2. Shaykh al-Islām Mawlānā Shabbīr Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī (1887 – 1949), author of a well-known commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, referred to as “Muḥaqqiq al-‘Aṣr” by ‘Allāmah Kawtharī and a champion for the cause of Pakistan. He says: “For a long time I had hoped that if a comprehensive treatise on the subject were written it would be very beneficial. Many times I had thought to write something myself but this reward is your share. Mā shā Allāh, the teachings and statements of the Akābir have been explained in simple, generally understood and easy expressions. If any harshness is sensed in any passage it is to be considered as part of: ‘take revenge after being wronged’. In my opinion it is our duty to make all effort to publicise it…” (ibid.)
  3. ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Shakūr al-Fārūqī al-Lakhnawī (1876 – 1962), a famous author and debater. He wrote several books against the Shī‘ah and in favour of Ahl al-Sunnah. He wrote a popular work on Ḥanafi Fiqh called Ilm al-Fiqh. He is a scion of the famous Firangī Maḥall school of Lucknow, having studied for about 7 years under Mawlānā ‘Ayn al-Quḍāt al-Ḥaydarābādī a famous successor of ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī, perhaps the most well-known of the Firangī Maḥall scholars. Hence, he is a non-Deobandī scholar contemporaneous with the founding of the Barelwī school, who opposed them. He says: “May Allāh give excellent reward to the author for having properly shed light on all the issues which are disputed between Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah and the new innovated sect RazāKhāniyyah.” He dated the endorsement to 29 Dhu l-Qadah, 1348 (1930). (ibid. p. 4)
  4. ‘Allāmah Sayyid Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī (1868 – 1951), who ‘Allāmah Kawtharī referred to as “the prominent teacher” in reference to his work against Qādiyānīs. He has several works in refutation of Barelwīs and Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī. He even sent some of his refutations directly to the latter.
  5. ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī (1892 – 1974), the celebrated author of I‘lā al-Sunan. He wrote an endorsement in Arabic, part of which is: “I was honoured to read the treatise al-Sayf al-Yamānī, and by my life, it is like its name a sword cutting the necks of the people of desires and vain hopes. Indeed, its author did well and benefited and showed the people the ways of guidance…” (ibid. p. 5)
  6. ‘Allāmah Muḥaddith Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-A‘ẓamī (1901 – 1992), the famous scholar of ḥadīth.

Contents

‘Azīz Aḥmad Kānpūrī’s booklet consists of 30 so-called beliefs of the ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband and 22 questions. Mawlānā Nu’mānī thus addresses all the allegations and then answers each question.

Some of the important issues that are addressed are as follows:

  1. The passage from Barāhīn e Qāti‘ah about the knowledge of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
  2. The passage from Barāhīn Qāti‘ah describing a dream in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke Urdu
  3. The Deobandī position on Mawlid and ‘Urs, and the alleged “dissimulation” (taqiyya) of Deobandīs on this matter
  4. The title Raḥmatun lil ‘Ālamīn and whether it can be used for other than the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
  5. The meaning of “Khātamiyyah” and the finality of prophethood according to Deobandīs and Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotawī
  6. The dream of a devotee of Haḍrat Thānawī in which he mistakenly referred to the latter as “Rasūlullāh”
  7. A passage from Marthiya Gangohī describing Mawlānā Gangohī as “a second to Islām’s founder”
  8. The passage from Hifẓ al-Īmān on describing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as ‘ālim al-ghayb
  9. The passage from Taḥdhīr al-Nās stating that deeds of an Ummatī can apparently be more numerous than those of their Prophets
  10. Imkān Kidhb
  11. Bid‘ah, its types and whether certain forms of īṣāl thawāb amount to bid‘ah

Some sections of the work may be translated/summarised in future posts, insha Allah.


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.