Shāh Ismā‘īl and Negating Direction for Allah

December 1, 2016

Some Berelwis, in imitation of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi, claim that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd said that to believe Allāh is free from direction and place is bid‘ah (heresy/innovation). Ahmad Rida Khan made this claim in, for example, Qawāri‘ al-Qahhār, where he said Shāh Ismā‘īl wrote in his book Īḍāḥ al-Ḥaqq al-Ṣarīḥ that the belief in Allah’s transcendence from place and direction is innovation and heresy. Abu Hasan of Masabih Forum wrote in an ebook going by the name “The Preamble to Faith”: “Ismāýīl wrote that it is a heresy to believe that God is without a direction or that He is transcendent from space.”

Shāh Ismā‘īl, however, did not say this.

To understand the passage in question, it would help to clarify a few of the terms Shāh Ismā‘īl used. The book Īḍāḥ al-Ḥaqq al-Ṣarīḥ is on the subject of bid‘ah (innovation). He explains the term “bid‘ah” by reference to the ḥadīth, “Whoever innovates in this matter [i.e. religion] of ours what is not from it, it is rejected [i.e. as bid‘ah].” “Religious matters” in this context, he explains, as those things which the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) assigned ukhrawī (otherworldly) benefits to, as benefits of the afterlife can only be known through the medium of prophets. Such actions of ukhrawī benefit have particular specifications determined by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) which he came to teach. To make new specifications or change those specifications established from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is what he explains as amounting to bid‘ah.

He assigns two categories to bid‘ah: bid‘ah ḥaqīqiyyah (real bid‘ah) and bid‘ah ḥukmiyyah/‘amaliyyah (effective or practical bid‘ah). The first is where a specified action is done with the belief that it is part of religion i.e. that the specification has ukhrawī benefit (or a specific action is omitted believing it has ukhrawi harm) when it is in fact not part of the religion i.e. it is not established from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the general practice of the ṣaḥābah. The second (ḥukmī bid‘ah) is where an action is done without holding such a belief, but it is done in such a way that gives the appearance of it being done with the belief in its ukhrawī benefit. He gives the example of īṣāl al-thawāb to the dead, which is in principle permissible, but to specify the day of death and undergo immense difficulty in performing this act on the day of death, despite the many other duties on that day, gives the impression that this specification (i.e. of the day of death for īṣāl al-thawāb) is believed to be of benefit, and it is thus bid‘ah in effect or in practice (‘amali/ḥukmī bid‘ah), though not in reality (ḥaqīqī).

Now Shāh Ismā‘īl’s discussion in the section in question can be understood. A rough translation of this section – which is what Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi and his followers base the above allegation on – is as follows:

“On the explanation of those things which are included in real bid‘ah (ḥaqīqī bid‘ah). First Issue: It should be known that discussing the issue of waḥdat wujūd and shuhūd, and discussing the tanazzulāt khamsa, and discussing the ṣādir awwal and discussing tajaddud amthāl and kumūn and burūz; and likewise the (philosophical) discussions of taṣawwuf, and likewise the issue of the Almighty being abstract and simple in relation to one’s mind, meaning abstract from time, place, direction, māhiyyattarkib of the philosophical kind; and the discussion of attributes being part of Allāh’s essence or additional to the essence, interpreting the mutashābihat, and to affirm the vision of Allah without direction or opposition, and affirming atomistic philosophy while negating hylomorphism or vice versa; and to discuss the issue of qadr, and discussing the world as being emergent and existent by way of necessity, affirming the world as being pre-existent; and likewise engaging in studies of ‘Ilm al-Kalām, Ilāhiyyāt and philosophy; all of this is from the category of real bid‘ah (haqiqi bid’atif those upholding them regard, and have conviction in them, as established beliefs of the religion. And if they do not believe them to be from the beliefs of religion, still such theories and investigations are definitely included in effective innovations (ḥukmī bid’ahin this age. This is because to exert effort in order to understand the reality of these matters, and to assess them, and to include those who discuss these matters amongst the scholars of religion and lordly sages, and to praise them because of this just as truly religious perfections are praised, is not only rampant amongst the commoners but this type of talk is found amongst the elite also.” (Īḍāḥ al-Ḥaqq al-Ṣarīḥ, Urdu Tr, Qadimi Kutub Khanah, p. 77-8)

It is clear that in this entire passage Shāh Ismā‘īl is not discussing “beliefs” per se, but rather the act of studying these issues related to kalām, taṣawwuf and philosophy, while having the belief that these issues are established elements of Islam, which are sought after for their own sake. In effect, he is censuring the study of the peripheral and abstract issues of kalām, philosophy and taṣawwuf. If it is done with the belief that these peripheral matters are established issues of Islamic belief that are learnt for their own sake, this is real innovation, as it is specifying an act in religion that was not specified by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). However if this is not the belief, then he says that in our time, this is effective innovation due to these elements being treated in such a way by the Muslims that gives the impression that they are as important to them as actual religious matters.

Shāh Ismā‘īl’s qualification “in this age” clearly indicates that he believed that these areas of study are not in and of themselves blameworthy. Only when they are done with the belief that they are intrinsic elements of Islam (in which case they will be ḥaqīqī bid’ah) or are treated in such a way (in which case they will be ḥukmi bid’ah), are they considered innovations. However, his explanation allows for these discussions in the correct context and with the correct belief and treatment. In fact, he himself discusses many of these issues in another work called al-‘Abaqāt. Under one of the discussions in the latter work, he clarifies that the reason for entering into these investigations is to stave off doubts produced by the misguided, although the default rule is that they should not be entered into. (al-‘Abaqāt, Urdu Translation*, p. 182-3).

And in fact, in the work al-‘Abaqāt, Shāh Ismā‘īl explicitly negates direction and place for the being of Allāh (ibid. p. 76, 211), which, for objective and fair-minded observers, should lay this allegation to rest – not forgetting, of course, that the allegation to begin with is baseless, as the passage from Īḍāḥ al-Ḥaqq al-Ṣarīḥ does not in any way imply that the belief in Allāh’s transcendence from direction and place is innovation.



Deceptions and Distortions of Abu Hasan

November 4, 2013


The following are examples of lies and distortions collected from just a few of the writings of the fabricator and falsifier, Abu Hasan, who writes on Masabih Forums and collaborates with/is admired by young Barelwi preachers from UK like Asrar Rasheed, Munawwar Ateeq, Naveed Jameel etc. Hopefully, this sample will serve to alert unbiased and clear-minded individuals to the fact that this person is not a reliable source of information, and is no less than a kazzāb.

For an in-depth study of some of the slanders and lies perpetrated by the undisputed Imaam of these Barelwis, see Maulana Manzoor Nu’mani’s detailed analyses posted here: The Barelwi Slanders Against the Ulama-e-Deoband

Deceptions and

Distortions of Abu




Abu Hasan said:

[Shāh] Ismāýīl…was slain by upright Muslims in Balakot – but Deobandi/Wahābī followers colour it as a martyrdom.

Shāh Ismā’īl was killed by Sikhs. The Balakot Battle was led by Maharajat Sher Sing. See, for instance, Sayyid Abu l-Hasan Nadwī’s Idhā Habbat Rīh al-Imān, pp. 181-8. The academic, Harlon O. Pearson, says: “In 1831, in a full-scale battle at the town of Balakot located in the Himalayan foothills, the Sikh army decisively defeated and dispersed the mujahidin. The two Muhammadi leaders, Sayyid Ahmad Brelwi and Muhammad Isma’il were killed.” (Islamic Reform and Revival in Nineteenth Century India, p 41)



Abu Hasan said:

The fatwā of Gangohī, however is disputed by later Deobandis and claimed to be a forgery – yet, Gangohī did not deny it himself; his followers point out OTHER fatāwā to prove Gangohī’s actual belief, but there is no explicit denial of Gangohī of that fatwā, even though it was reproduced by his critics and publicly decried in his own lifetime, and takfīr was also made by his critics on this issue. There is not a single statement of Gangohī that explicitly repudiates that fatwā or simply says: “That fatwā is not mine”.

Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī did deny the fatwa as documented by his student, Mawlānā Murtazā Hasan Chāndpūrī, in several of his works. See translation of Fayslah Kun Munāzarah, pp. 37-8 (

Note: Abu Hasan is aware of Fayslah Kun Munāzarah and its translation.



Abu Hasan said:

[Deobandi elders believe] that it is bidáh to believe that Allāh does not have a direction.

In Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpurī’s al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad, signed by many of the Deobandi elders (including Shaykh al-Hind and Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī), it says: “As for direction and place, we do not allow affirming them for Him – Exalted is He – and we say that He – Exalted is He – is pure and transcendent beyond them and from all qualities of temporality.” (وأما الجهة والمكان فلا نجوز إثباتهما له تعالى ونقول إنه تعالى منزه ومتعال عنهما وعن جميع سمات الحدوث)

[Note: Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd is not technically an elder of Deoband, and the attribution of the above view to him is also incorrect.]



Abu Hasan said:

“It is also true that Ismāýīl Dihlawī…derided adherence to madh’habs… and Deobandis choose to ignore the subject

The claim “Deobandis choose to ignore the subject” is demonstrably untrue and another clear falsehood. Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī himself addressed the issue. He said in Fatāwā Rashidiyyah: “That which this slave has heard, it was the condition of the deceased Mawlānā [i.e. Shāh Isma‘īl] that as long as a non-abrogated authentic hadith could be found, he would act on that. And if it could not be found, he would do taqlīd of Imām Abū Hanīfah – And Allah Ta’ala knows best…” (p. 93) He goes on to say that this is what becomes clear from reading his books.



Referring to Taqwiyat al-Imān, Abu Hasan said:

commonly accepted practices like tawassul were slammed as polytheistic.”

In fact, far from saying it is polytheistic, Shāh Isma‘īl said tawassul through personalities was correct in Taqwiyat al-Imān. He wrote: “But if it is said, ‘O Allah, give me for the sake of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir’, then this is allowed.” (Taqwiyat al-Imān)



Abu Hasan quoted an Arabic passage of Musamarah/Musayarah and then translated it as follows:

وأما ثبوتها أي القدرة على ما ذكر ثم الامتناع عن متعلقها اختياراً فبمذهب أي فهو بمذهب الأشاعرة أليق منه بمذهب المعتزلة ، و لا يخفى أن هذا الأليق أدخل في التنزيه أيضا

“That is, proof of Power on that which has been mentioned but impossibility to act upon it by His Choice. But the madh’hab that is the madh’hab of Ash`aris is more suitable than that of the mu’tazilah. And it is obvious that this better position is also included in Transcendence of Allah.”

Anybody with a basic comprehension of Arabic can see that the “translation” does not correspond to the original Arabic, and is clear distortion (tahrīf). The original Arabic leading up to this sentence is as follows:

ثم قال أي صاحب العمدة : و لا يوصف الله تعالى بالقدرة على الظلم و السفه و الكذب لأن المحال لا يدخل تحت القدرة أي لا يصلح متعلقا لها و عند المعتزلة يقدر تعالى على كل ذلك و لا يفعل انتهى كلام صاحب العمدة ، و كأنه انقلب عليه ما نقله عن المعتزلة ، إذ لا شك أن سلب القدرة عما ذكر هو مذهب المعتزلة ، و أما ثبوتها أي القدرة على ما ذكر ثم الامتناع عن متعلقها اختياراً فبمذهب أي فهو بمذهب الأشاعرة أليق منه بمذهب المعتزلة ، و لا يخفى أن هذا الأليق أدخل في التنزيه أيضا

The translation of which, in context, is as follows:

“Then he i.e. the author of Al-’Umdah said, ‘Allah (Exalted is He) is not described with Power over oppression, impudence and falsehood because the impossible is not included in [His] Power, i.e. it is improper for it to pertain to them. According to the Mu’tazilah, He (Exalted is He) is Able over all that but does not do [them].’ End quote from Al-’Umdah.

“It appears as though he altered that which he transmitted from the Mu’tazilah, since there is no doubt that the absence of power over what was mentioned is the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah. As for its presence, i.e. power over what was mentioned, and then abstention from pertaining to them by choice, to the madhhab, i.e. it is to the madhhab of the Ash’aris, more fitting than it is to the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah. It is obvious that this more fitting [position] is also included in transcendence.”

The underlined part is the section “translated” by Abu Hasan above. It is very clear that Abu Hasan tries to convey the complete opposite meaning of what was intended by the original passage, which states that the inclusion of the aforementioned things in the Divine Power (and then abstention from them by choice) is the view most suitable to the Ash’aris.



Abu Hasan said:

what khalil wrote was: “ilm e muHiT e zameen” and alahazrat in husam (according to numani mistranslated the above) “bi `ilmi’l arD al-muHiT”.

Nowhere does Mawlānā Manzūr Nu’māni say Ahmad Ridā Khān Barelwī mistranslated this phrase.



Regarding the view that having the garment below the ankle without pride is not makrūh tahrīmī or harām but only slightly disliked, Abu Hasan said: “qaDi iyaD, nawawi, ibn Hajar [al-‘Asqalānī], sanusi, qastallani on one side

It is not true that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī sided with this view as clear from his Fath al-Bārī



Abu Hasan said:

What Khalīl had said was that the encompassing knowledge of the earth is proven for Satan but unproven for RasūlAllāh.

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. He only mentions “encompassing knowledge of the earth” as a hypothetical knowledge which was wrongly affirmed for Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) based on a false analogy.



Abu Hasan said:

Tawassul of Awliyā’ / Prophets [is] Bid‘ah/Shirk according to elders [of Deoband].”

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.”

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?

Reply to Abu Hasan on Deobandi fatwa on Isbal

July 1, 2013

Reply to Abu Hasan on Deobandi fatwa on Isbal

Abu Hasan attacked the fatwa of a respected Deobandi Mufti ( here:

He says:

the “mufti” and his approver are both idiots. and his words reek of the stench of wahabism they drown in when nobody is looking.

I’m sure these cheap insults are consoling for him and his crew but for those who are after truth, his insults mean nothing. And the truth is there is no “wahhabism” in this fatwa, as it carefully describes where and how it is following principles of Hanafi fiqh. And it is Abu Hasan that is the idiot which has again and again been proved on this very site, and a few of his idiocies are described below.

In answer to the comment in the fatwa by the Deobandi scholar: “It is amazing to see that inspite of this hadith being quoted in five of the six authentic books, the Barelwis still opt to give a reference of a hadith from a Fiqh book,” Abu Hasan says:

so deobandi fatawa are only hadith citations? or do they doff the ‘hanafiyat’ when it is not conducive?

Which as usual is a complete distortion of what was being said. The Mufti in the fatwa merely explained that it is strange that in the Barelwi fatwa quoted in the question, the so-called (Barelwi) mufti giving the fatwa quotes a famous hadith (on not folding one’s garments) from a fiqh book. Of course you would quote fatwas and fiqh from fatwa and fiqh books, but the norm and convention is to quote hadith from reliable hadith-books, as fiqh/fatwa books are not reliable sources of hadith. This is the simple and straightforward point that was being made which Abu Hasan not only overlooked but twisted and distorted.

He then quotes some commentators of hadith to “prove” that having the garments below the ankles without pride is only makruh tanzihi, and not makruh tahrimi as stated by the Deobandi Mufti. From amongst these commentators, he quotes Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani; whereas the truth is that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani in his lengthy explanation inclines to the view that it is makruh tahrimi (i.e. haram) when garments are deliberately below the ankles even without pride! Abu Hasan in fact does not give the full quotes of Ibn Hajar. For example in the explanation of a Bab title, Abu Hasan quotes Ibn Hajar as follows:

“on he who drags his garment but not out of pride. that is such a person is exempt from the dire warnings mentioned [for those who let flow their garments dragging behind them]”
However, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani goes on to discuss that there is another condition: if it is done for an excuse (‘udhr), then there is no blame on the person. But if (without pride) one does it without an excuse, Ibn Hajar says there is detail to this issue, which he discusses later. And in his discussion, he explains that some are of the view that it is makruh tanzihi and others that it is makruh tahrimi; and he brings a number of proofs for the latter view. For example he shows that the prohibition was not restricted to the state of pride by the fact that Umm Salamah asked about the ruling for women after the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned this. If it was restricted to the condition of pride, Umm Salamah would not have asked this, as the lowering of the garments was only a manifestation of pride for men. Similarly, he quotes the hadiths which say that lowering the garments itself is “from pride” (من المخيلة) to show that this condition of pride is not to exclude those who do it without pride but to clarify that this act itself is a prideful act. For a long quote from Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani where he gives other reasons from hadiths why the prohibition is not restricted to the condition of pride, see here:
This view was not only elaborated by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, but the Maliki imam, Ibn al-‘Arabi.
Abu Hasan paraphrases a recent Salafi commentator:

however safiyu’r RaHman mubarakpuri in his commentary of muslim says that there are three types who drag their clothes:

1. out of pride
2. unwittingly or unknowingly or for a necessity
3. not out of pride, and not of necessity, but deliberately.

according to the mubarakpuri mazkur, 1 and 3 are haram and 2 has no sin.

He does not realise however that these distinctions are found also in Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari.

 He then says:
i don’t know which hadith these three categories are mentioned; if it is istinbat or derivation from hadith, or ‘understood’ from the hadith, why should you be forgiven for ‘interpretation’ and ulama are accused of rejecting hadith if they do the same?
Again Abu Hasan puts things in the mouth of the scholar . Which ‘ulama’ were accused of rejecting hadith if they do this istinbat based on the hadiths? In the entire fatwa no such accusation was made. In fact it was conceded in the fatwa that major ‘ulama of hadith and of fiqh held this view, that to let the garments go below the ankles is haram with pride and makruh tanzihi without. But all it argued was that based on a number of hadiths condemning the practice, the harshness and severity of the warning, the favoured interpretation of the Deobandi scholars that the prohibition is with and without pride, and the aspect of caution, it has been decided to give fatwa on the view of prohibition (makruh tahrimi) with or without pride; and there is no authoratative ruling in the madhhab contradicting this.
He then says:
regardless, qaDi iyaD, nawawi, ibn Hajar, sanusi, qastallani on one side – pretenders of the 15th century on other side. choose your pick.
Which as has been explained above is inaccurate. Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-‘Arabi held the view supported by the Deobandi mufti, and the Deobandi scholars take this opinion on the strength of its evidence and in accordance with the principles of Hanafi fiqh.
Finally, another of Abu Hasan’s idiocies:
 He says: “in ikmal [of ubayy d.828AH]” whereas the name of this author is “Ubbi” not “Ubayy”

Abu Hasan’s Distorted Translation of Qur’an Verses

June 14, 2013

Abu Hasan’s Distorted Translation of Qur’an Verses

We have by now seen numerous examples of Abu Hasan’s inept, and sometimes deceptive, translations of various Arabic passages. Here we will take a look at one of his terrible translations of a Qur’an verse.

Qur’an 25:23 says:

وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَى مَا عَمِلُوا مِنْ عَمَلٍ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ هَبَاء مَّنثُورًا

Which Abu Hasan translates as:

“And they sent forth to us from their deeds, [but] we made them useless, like spent wool.” page 2

This is Abu Hasan’s own concocted translation.

The first part of the sentence does not mean “they sent forth to us from their deeds.” The word “qaddama” means to send forth, but here the word “qaddama” is not used; instead the word “qadima” is used. Furthermore the subject of the word qadima is not “they” but is We i.e. Allah. “Qadima” means to go towards/approach/advance/proceed towards. So the first part of the sentence means: “We will proceed to what they did.” Which Abu Hasan translates as: “they sent forth to us from their deeds.” One can notice the clear difference in the meanings of the two.

The second part of the sentence says “We will make it haba’ manthur.” “Haba” refers to the dust particles that become visible when the rays of sun enter a room through a window; and “manthur” means scattered. So this part means: “We will make it scattered particles of dust.” Which Abu Hasan mistakenly translates as “spent wool.”

Abu Hasan therefore mistranslated both parts of this verse.

It is of course a far more heinous crime to interpret/translate the Qur’an based on one’s deficient understanding than it is any other text. The Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever interprets the Qur’an with his own opinion, let him prepare his seat in the Fire.” (Tirmidhi)

This is not the first time Abu Hasan was informed of an error in his personal translation of a Qur’an verse, and was warned of the dangers of this. Several years ago, he was, after been corrected on a mistranslation, advised not to produce his own translation but to rely on already available ones; his response was to correct his mistaken translation and say: “the verse has been corrected as pointed out by the brother. may Allah ta’ala reward him amply for his naSihah.” Yet, many years later he adopts the same careless attitude of (mis)translating the words of Allah using his own manifestly deficient knowledge and understanding.

In the same “work” linked above he attacks a Deobandi scholar, saying: “It is incredible that a person who claims to believe in Judgement day – can slander and lie with such ease.” Is it not then incredible that someone who believes in Judgement day can be so careless when it comes to interpreting the words of Allah, even after having been previously warned?

Exposing Another of Abu Hasan’s Translation Fails

May 17, 2013

Exposing Another of Abu Hasan’s Translation Fails

Here is another example of Abu Hasan’s translation fails:

Here he quotes Imam al-Tahawi and translates his statement as follows:


wa man waSafa Allaha bi ma’ani al-bashar, fa qad kafar.
fa man abSara hadha i’ytabar.
wa `an mithli qawli’l kuffari inzajar.
wa `ullima annahu bi Sifatihi laysa ka’l bashar.

whosoever describes Allah ta’ala in terms of human attributes had committed disbelief (kufr). those who reflect upon this will realize [the truth]. [a person who utters such heretical words] should be severely reprimanded [rebuked and deterred] like the sayings of the infidels [are rejected]. and he will be taught that Allah, in His Attributes is not similar to the attributes of a human.


Abu Hasan gets both the transliteration and the translation wrong.

In the transliteration, the final sentence is not “wa ‘ullima” (he is taught) but “wa ‘alima” (he knows).

As for the translation, after the second sentence, Abu Hasan completely lost the meaning of the author, Imam al-Tahawi.

Al-Tahawi was not talking about a person who “utters such heretical words.”

Instead he was talking about the person who understands that the one who describes Allah with a human quality has committed disbelief. The person who understands this “will reflect/ draw lessons (i’tabar); and will be deterred (inzajara) (i.e. by his own knowledge and belief) from the like of the statements of the disbelievers; and will know that He (Allah) is not like man in His attributes.”

Abu Hasan’s silly error was because he mistook “inzajara” (is deterred), which is an intransitive verb, for a transitive verb (which is actually zajara). There are other misunderstandings of the text too, but there is no need to dwell on them.

Can such a person who cannot understand an elementary ‘aqidah text, and derives meanings from Arabic statements that were not intended by them, be trusted in his “research” and “translations”? You be the judge.

Another Example of Abu Hasan’s Distortions

February 5, 2013

Another Example of Abu Hasan’s Distortions

There is a common claim made by the Barelwis that Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri/Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in Barahin Qati‘ah compared the mawlid celebration to Hindu and Rafidi festivals. This false allegation was answered by Mawlana Saharanpuri in al-Muhannad.

Abu Hasan, whose deceptions and distortions have been documented here before, also makes this claim. He says:

comparing celebration of mawlid an-nabiy, to hindus (or worse) commemorating birthday of krishna. barahin, pg.152
then, this repeated celebration of birthday [of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam] is similar to the gathering[1] of hindus, celebrating the birthday of krishna [2]; or similar to the rafidis who narrate the story of the martyrdom of ahl al-bayt every year; [we seek Allah’s refuge] ma’adhAllah! this is would be equivalent of play-acting [saang] the birth of the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. and this ugly act is in itself worthy of blame and haram [forbidden] and corruption [fisq].

rather, these people are worse than those communities [3] because, they do it on a specific date, and here they have no restriction – they do it whenever they like.

Apart from failing to mention the context of this statement, he also distorts the meaning of the passage.

The whole section of Barahin here, from p. 151 onwards, is a quotation of a fatwa from Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, in reply to a question specifically on standing (Qiyam) at the mention of the birth of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam). It is NOT about the mawlid in general.

He first explains in quite some detail that this practice (i.e. standing at the mention of the birth) is not found in the pious early generations, thus to consider it an act of religion constitutes bid‘ah.

Then he moves on to some of the “justifications” given for standing at this moment, where he says:

Alhasil qiyam waqt zikr e wiladat ki ya yeh wajh he

“In sum, standing at the moment of the mention of the birth either has the justification that…”

He mentions two such justifications: mawdu hadiths, and statements/actions of the pious, and explains that both of these are invalid proofs in the Shari‘ah.

And then he says:

Ya yeh wajh he ke ruh pak ‘alayhissalam ki ‘alam e arwah se ‘alam e shahadat meh tashrif lae is ki tazim ko qiyam he to yeh bhi mahz hamaqat he kyun ke is wajh meh qiyam kurna waqt wuqu wiladat sharifah ke hona chahiyeh ab hur roz konsi wiladat mukarrar hoti he? Pus yeh hur roz iadah wiladat ka to misl hunud keh sang kanhaya…

“Or the justification is that the pure spirit [of the Prophet] (upon him peace) came from the world of spirits to the world of seeing, so in reverence of this, one stands. This too is pure idiocy because in this justification, standing is to be done at the moment of the noble birth. Now, each day, which birth is being repeated? Thus, the re-enactment of birth is like the festival of Kanhaya of the Hindus…” (p. 152)

He is basically saying that one of the ways these people justify this practice is that at the moment of the birth of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam), his blessed soul arrived from the world of spirits to the present world, so we should stand at his arrival. But Mawlana Rashid Ahmad retorts that this would only be valid at the moment of his birth not at the mention of his birth. And to re-enact his birth and then to behave as though he is being born (by standing at his arrival) is similar to the practice of the Hindus and Rafidis.

He then goes on to say: “There is no precedent in the Shari‘ah for this, that some supposed matter is enacted and treated in the manner of reality; rather this is haram in the Shari‘ah.”

Aur is amr ki Shar meh kehin nazir nahin keh koi amr farzi thera kur haqiqat ka muamalah is ka sath kiya jaye, bulkeh yeh shar meh haram hey

It is clear, therefore, that in this passage, Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is merely challenging one of the justifications given for the Qiyam at the mention of the birth of Messenger (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam). This justification is invalid, he says, because the birth does not recur in these days, so one cannot behave as though the birth is happening – as this has no precedent in the Shari‘ah and would be similar to the festivals of non-Muslims.

Now consider what Mawlana Gangohi actually said, and the way in which Abu Hasan distorted his statement to say: “then, this repeated celebration of birthday [of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam] is similar to the gathering[1] of hindus.”

Notice, he starts his translation of the passage midway so the reader does not understand that Mawlana Gangohi is talking about the Qiyam, and not mawlid. Moreover, nowhere does Mawlana Gangohi say “the repeated celebration of birthday.” He is referring to the re-enactment of the birth. When he says “hur roz iadah wiladat” (repetition of the birth everyday), he is NOT talking about “celebrating” the birthday, but about envisioning a recurrence of the actual birth of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam). “Wiladat” here does not mean the “mawlid celebration” but the event of the birth of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) itself.

Thus, as is routine with Abu Hasan – and his Barelwi brethren – not only does he not mention the context of the passage in question, but in order to make it fit with what he is trying to put in the author’s mouth, he also distorts it from its original meaning.