Abu Hasan the Fraud and Liar

July 27, 2018

The Barelwi Abu Hasan of Sunniport has been exposed as a fraud and liar on this website, most notably here:


This is a post from around 5 years ago.

But only yesterday, Abu Hasan wrote: “frauds have always existed. even in those good times 1300 years ago. there were people who claimed to have ijazah and that they heard from saHabah. so ulama devised strategies to trap pretenders. the only way we can do it in our time is to make knowledge accessible, such that even common people can detect the elaborate fraud of the celebrity shakes in the west.” He comments about a particular scholar that he “lied, and 5 years after i demonstrated how he lied, there is no remorse – and people seem to have just moved on.”

The irony is of course not lost on anyone. Abu Hasan has been proven without a shadow of doubt to lie and deceive, just like his “AlaHazrat”. Why does he not show remorse, make amends and admit he lied?


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 (http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/17064) 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: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?57315-Mufti-Taqi-Usmani-on-Isbal&p=470268&viewfull=1#post470268
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.” 

http://www.noorulislambolton.com/books/the-preamble-to-faith.pdf 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.

Reply to Abu Hasan’s Latest Antics‏

January 6, 2013

Reply to Abu Hasan’s Latest Antics‏

Zameelur Rahman

Abu Hasan of sunniport released a new ebook on the biography of his “Alahazrat,” Ahmad Rida Khan, the founder of the Barelwi school. In the course of the biography, he repeatedly disparages Deobandis, Deobandi elders and their forerunners – in what is supposed to be a biography of his leader – and then claims it is the Deobandis who have an axe to grind! Anyhow, with reference to Deobandis, there are a number of inaccuracies, lies and slanders, in highlighting which I hope it is clear to readers that Abu Hasan is not a trustworthy source. Moreover, it should also be clear that he does not address the substantial replies already available.


On pg. 17, he said: “Deobandis are Wahabis with a difference: they accept and adhere to madh’habs.”

Deobandis have many other differences to the Arabian Wahhabis listed in for example Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani’s book on Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab called Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab aur Hindustan ke ‘Ulama Haqq.

For example, Deobandis believe it is recommended to visit the grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him) from far, Wahhabis don’t; Deobandis allow tawassul through personalities, Wahhabis don’t; Deobandis differentiate between different intentions associated with istighathah, Wahhabis don’t; Wahhabis are neutral or antagonistic to Tasawwuf, Deobandis embrace it; etc.

On pg. 17, he said: “Deobandi elders believe that it is not impossible for Allāh táālā to lie”

Deobandis believe it is impossible for Allah to lie; but they differ from Barelwis as to the reason for its impossibility – is it an intrinsic impossibility or one contingent on Allah’s choice? Deobandis opt for the latter – an opinion found in classical kalam works. This is therefore purposely misleading as it gives the impression Deobandis believe it is actually possible for a lie to occur in Allah’s speech! Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri wrote in al-Muhannad, signed by many prominent Deobandi elders: “We and our elders (Allah Most High have mercy on them) declare and are convinced that all speech that issued from the Creator (Great and Glorious is He) or will issue from Him is absolutely truthful, and it is certain that it concurs with reality. Undoubtedly, there is no trace of falsehood in any part of His (Exalted is He) Speech, nor any doubt about [the absence of] contravening reality [in His Speech]. Whoever believes contrary to this or conceives of a lie in any part of His Speech, is a disbeliever, apostate and heretic, and does not have even a trace of faith.”

On pg. 17, he said: “[Deobandi elders believe] that it is bidáh to believe that Allāh does not have a direction”

In Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad, signed by many of the Deobandi elders (including Shaykh al-Hind and Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi), 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)

A more glaring slander and lie, one cannot find.

On g. 33, he says: “We ask Deobandis who pretend to be Sunnis and claim to have nothing to do with Wahhabism, to show us a single book or booklet written by any of their prominent scholars denouncing Wahhabism.” He continues: “A couple of words in a book by one of their scholars is no proof; is there a full fledged refutation of Wahabis anywhere? How can it exist when it was the kingpin of their ideology, Ismāýīl Dihlawī, who introduced this heresy in India.”

He asks this question, as though “Wahhabism” itself is an identifiable “heretical belief.” You have to first describe the particular belief of “Wahhabism” that is heretical in order to refute it. And indeed Deobandis have refuted many wrong beliefs commonly associated with Wahhabis; e.g. total abandonment of taqlid (see: http://attahawi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/al-din-al-qayyim.pdf), antagonism to tasawwuf, vilification of the Hanafi school and Abu Hanifah (see: I’la al-Sunan), prohibiting visitation to the prophet’s grave (peace be upon him) from afar (see: http://attahawi.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chapters-on-the-prophetic-visitation2.pdf), rejection of the correct kind of tawassul, understanding Allah’s attributes literally etc.

Furthermore, Shah Isma’il did not introduce any version of “Wahhabism” in India as he had no access to it. When he traveled to the Hijaz for Hajj the Wahhabis had already been expelled. See: http://www.deoband.org/2010/06/history/answering-distortions-and-lies/shattering-the-wahhabi-myths-surrounding-shah-isma%E2%80%98il-shahid/

On pg. 33, he says: “True, they [Deobandis] claim to oppose Anti-Madh’habism” and in his footnote he mentions: “See works by Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī and Abū Ghuddah.”

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah is not representative of the Deobandi school; so this is an example of inaccuracy. Furthermore, there are no well-known works where ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri tackles the issue of madhhabism (yes, he has books defending the Hanafi madhhab, but that is another matter).  Another inaccuracy.

On pg. 33 he says: “Nuz’hatu’l Khawāţir has scholarly slanders; and dozens of books like Shihāb al-Thāqib, booklets of Chandpūrī, and Al-Baraylawiyyah of Ihsan Ilahi Zaheer are remarkable for cheap and tawdry insults”

He says this as though he hasn’t read “Alahazrat’s” works! According to him, the harsh words of Mawlana Madani and Mawlana Chandpuri are “cheap insults” but the filthy language of his Alahazrat is completely justified. If we are fair, we will say both sides engaged in ad hominem attacks, but who started the insults? Sure enough, it was his “Alahazrat.” Mawlanas Chandpuri and Mawlana Madani only responded.

On pg. 33, he says: “It is also true that Ismāýīl Dihlawī, their grand imām, was the first to introduce Wahabi thought in India and derided adherence to madh’habs.  Modern spinmeisters present him as a Ĥanafī, and Deobandis choose to ignore the subject”

Firstly, Shah Isma‘il held the position that taqlid mutlaq (i.e. taqlid not restricted to a particular madhhab) is binding on a common person, as mentioned in Nuzhat al-Khawatir (p. 915). Some Deobandis also held this view. For example, in al-Din al-Qayyim, Mawlana Thanawi’s student, Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi said: “If all the madhhabs are prevalent in a town from the towns and they are well-known, and large numbers of scholars specialised in every madhhab are present therein, it is permissible for the layperson to follow whichever madhhab from the madhhabs he wishes and all of them with respect to him are equal. It is also permissible for him not to adopt a specific madhhab and seek fatwa from whoever he wishes from the ulama of those madhhabs, this madhhab one time and that madhhab another time, as the pious predecessors (Allah be pleased with them) would do, with the condition that there is no talfiq in an action, and no seeking out of concessions and following of desires.”. [However, elsewhere in the book he seems to suggest taqlid shakhsi is obligatory in this time based on it being difficult for common people to avoid these consequences, of talfiq, seeking out concessions etc.] Shah Isma’il has precedence for this in some of the writings of his grandfather, Shah Wali Allah.

Most Deobandis believe in the obligation of taqlid shakhsi (i.e. sticking to one madhhab) due to secondary, circumstantial reasons i.e. to prevent the masses from falling into talfiq, following desires, seeking out concessions and following shadhdh opinions. See: http://www.deoband.org/2012/07/general/taqlid-and-ijtihad/the-issue-of-taqlid-and-adopting-a-madhhab/

As for the claim “Deobandis choose to ignore the subject,” it is demonstrably false and another clear inaccuracy. Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi himself addressed the issue! He said in Fatawa Rashidiyyah: “That which this slave has heard, it was the condition of the deceased Mawlana [i.e. Shah Isma‘il] 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 taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifah – And Allah Ta’ala knows best…” (p. 93) He goes on to say this is what becomes clear from reading his books.

Nuzhat al-Khawatir also mentions that Shah Isma’il believed in the divisibility of ijtihad and taqlid; which means the permissibility of doing ijtihad in one area when having mastered that area to the level of ijtihad; while doing taqlid in other areas where one has not reached the level of ijtihad. This is consistent with what Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi mentioned. Hence, Shah Isma‘il’s own preferences in fiqh may be based on a mix of personal ijtihad and adherence to the Hanafi school. There is no inherent heresy in this.

On pg. 35, referring to Taqwiyat al-Iman, he said: “commonly accepted practices like tawassul were slammed as polytheistic”

In fact, far from saying it is polytheistic, Shah Isma‘il said tawassul through personalities was correct in Taqwiyat al-Iman! He wrote: “But if it is said, ‘O Allah, give me for the sake [i.e., for the sake of his close relationship to You and his virtuous deeds] of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir’, then this is allowed” (Taqwiyat al-Iman, p.123). http://www.deoband.org/2010/06/history/answering-distortions-and-lies/shattering-the-wahhabi-myths-surrounding-shah-isma%E2%80%98il-shahid/

On pg. 35, he says: “Deobandi/Wahābī literature is chock full of rulings making takfīr on numerous things, yet Nadawi chose to describe Alahazrat as the flag-bearer of takfīr”

Notice the difference: Deobandis do takfir of numerous things, (like the belief the Prophet – peace be upon him – has knowledge of literally all ‘things’ including the time of the Hour, or he is literally a light and a human only in form). But “Alahazrat” did not do takfir of “things” but of people. He named specific people and went on a campaign to the Haramayn to have them declared kafirs. The description “flag-bearer of takfir” is therefore quite appropriate for him. Deobandis did not go out of their way to name and shame particular individuals, but focused on problematic beliefs; on the other hand, “Alahazrat’s” sole mission was to declare certain prominent individuals kafir.

On page 36, he asks a list of questions and then claims “Alahazrat” was careful in his takfir. This is an example of where he does not address already available material. All his questions and the patent lie that “Alahazrat” was careful in takfir are addressed in Fayslah Kun Munazarah, now translated – of which Abu Hasan is fully aware. (https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-decisive-debate-mawlana-manzur-numani/)

On pg 38, he said: “Nadawi, probably afraid that Arabic reading scholars would not buy the slander, resorted to falsehood when he accused Alahazrat that he “believed RasūlAllāh had complete knowledge of the unseen.””

Mawlana Nadwi also explained what is meant by this in “Ala’hazrat’s” usage where he continued to say:

“Thus, [according to Ahmad Rida Khan,] he [i.e. the Prophet – peace be upon him] knows all the universals and particulars from the beginning of creation till the establishment of Qiyamah, nay till entrance into Paradise and Hell, no minor thing straying from his knowledge, and no atom escaping his encompassment…” (Nuzhat al-Khawatir p. 1181)

Nadwi therefore describes Rida Khan’s beliefs accurately, as he certainly did believe and defended the view that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had full knowledge of all existents (literally: kullu shay’).

On pg. 56, he says: “Ismāýīl…was slain by upright Muslims in Balakot – but Deobandi/Wahābī followers colour it as a martyrdom”

Shah Isma’il was killed by Sikhs. The Balakot Battle was led by Maharajat Sher Sing. See for example, Sayyid Abu l-Hasan Nadwi’s Idha Habbat Rih al-Iman, 181-8. And 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)

Therefore, either this is another slander, or Abu Hasan believes that Sikhs are “upright Muslims.”

On pg. 56 with regard to the allegations against Shah Isma’il he says: “We invite Deobandis and other assorted Wahābīs to write a detailed refutation of this book and disprove Alahazrat.”

The common allegations against Shah Isma’il have been answered; see:






But again, Abu Hasan refuses to address the substantial replies already available.