| Hifz ul Eman & Kufr fight in Deoband |
 |
 |
 |
| English - Wahabi Deobandi | |||
| Written by ExposingNifaq | |||
| Tuesday, 21 June 2011 05:54 | |||
|
In 1319 AH, Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanwi answered a question regarding 'Ilm-e-Ghayb and published it as Hifzul Iman. In this book, he has compared the knowledge of Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam or to show its size or smallness to madmen and animals and has said there is nothing unique to Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam regarding this knowledge. The actual paragraph is this:
Original Urdu wording
See the original scan at this link: http://www.falaah.co.uk/refutation/wahabi/82-refuting-deobandi-mufti-part-3-.html
The Deobandi author in an attempt to justify this writing says that " This statement should not be taken as interpreted by Imam Ahmed Raza Khan RH ".
1. The fatwa of Kufr which was issued upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali thanvee by Imam Ahmed Raza al Barelwi (Rahimullah) and 33 scholars of Makkah and Medina , was due to Mawlana Ashraf Ali thanvi comparing the prophetic knoweldge of the unseen (Ghayb) with the knowledge possed by Zayd and `Amr, ( that is any tom and harry) in fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry. They say Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (RH) made an interpretation of that text of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and if the interpretation was not made, it will not amount to Kufr.
“Some people brought the book, Hifzul Iman by Ashraf Ali Thanwi to my grandfather (Sayyid Muhammad Jilani Qadri) and asked about it. He read the book and said, “Molvi Ashraf Ali has written an utmost disrespectful thing about ‘Ilm-e-Ghayb”.
“Is this service to the religion? Your elders were upon our path. Why did you oppose this?” Molvi Ashraf Ali Thanwi replied, “I have clarified this passage in another book of mine”. Shah Abul Khair answered, “So many people have diverged from the truth due to your book, what need remains of your clarification?”
ANALYSIS OF THE WORD ' AYSA"
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Deobandis abusing each other
Mawlana Asshraf ali Thanvee says Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 “phir yê ke âp kî dhât muqaddasa par `ilm-e-ghayb kâ hukm kiyâ jânâ agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us
ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂ `ilm-e-ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê kayûn kê har shakhs kô
kisî ne kisî aysî bât kâ `ilm hôtâ hê jô dusrê shakhs se makhfi hê”
“Then, about his blessed person having the unseen knowledge ordered upon him, if the words of Zayd are to be correct; with
regard to it; that ghayb can mean some of the unseen or everything of the unseen. If some of the unseen (ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya) is
meant, how is it a speciality for him (saw)? That sort of (aysâ) unseen knowledge has also been possessed by Zayd and `Amr, in
fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry.
The reason being is that every person has the knowledge of certain matters which are hidden to others.”
(Thanvi, Hifzul-Îmân (8, Muharram, 1319, Matbû’a: Maktaba Thanvi,
Karachi), p. 7-8) a`ûdhubillâh min dhâlik! Note : this, it is clear that Thanvi does not consider the ghaybi(unseen) knowledge given to the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) as one of his (saw) specialities or unique qualities. That is false as it is, but then to write that this sort of knowledge is also possessed by
the various creatures he mentioned, is extreme desrespect against our Master (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam).
Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangi actually wrote a whole booklet called, "Tawdîhul-bayân fî Hifzul-Îmân" on this passage alone and
writes on pages 8 and 17 that the word "aysâ (Urdu: this sort of)"is not only used as a "mithl" (to show similitude) but can also
mean, "itnâ (Urdu: this much)" and "is qadar (something like this)."
Manzûr Ahmad Sanbhalî followed in the line of Darbhangi and in his book, "Fath Bareylî kâ dil kash nazârah" wrote:
"Hifzul-Îmân ki is ibârat me bhi 'aysâ' 'tashbîha' ke liye nahi balke woh yahâ bad tashbîh ke 'itnâ' ke ma`ne me hey."
"In this passage of Hifzul-Îmân, the word 'aysâ' is not being used as a tashbîh (comparison). This [word] here is not a comparison but is being used in the meaning of 'itnâ'."
(Manzûr Sanbhali, Fath Bareylî kâ dil Kash nazârah, p. 32 He also stresses the same idea on pages 40 and 48.
He also writes:
"agar ba farz is ibârat kâ wôh matlab hô jô Mawlawî Sardâr Ahmad Sâhib bayân kar rahêhê jab to hamârî nazdîk bhi muwajab kufr hey!"
"If this text has the meaning which is stated by Mawlawî Sardâr Ahmad Sâhib, then that to us is ALSO KUFR."
(Manzûr Sanbhali, Fath Bareylî kâ dil Kash nazârah, p. 35)
Manzûr Ahmad Sanbhalî and Shaykh al-Hadîth Hadrat `Allama Sardâr Ahmad (r) did have a debate in Bareili Sharîf. In the debate,
Mawlana Sardar Ahmad was arguing that the word "aysâ" (this sort of) in Urdu is used for a comparison (tashbîh) between things.
Manzur Ahmad on the other hand, was arguing that "aysâ" in the text of Hifzul-Îmân was being used in the sence of "itnâ" (this
much) or "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu and not as a tashbîh which would also be kufr even according to him. [Note: The
truth is that "itnâ" (this much) and "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu are also used for comparisons!]
So to recap, both Manzur Sanbhalî and Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangî stress in more than one place in their works that:
1. The word "aysâ" in the text of Hifzul-Îmân has been used in the sence of "itnâ" (this much) or "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu
2. to take the word "aysâ" to be a "tashbîh" (comparison) would make the sentance one of KUFR!
Now lets have a look at what "the Shaykh al-Islam of the Deobandi's in his time, Maulana Sayyid Husayn Ahmad al-Madani"wrote in his very work "Shihâbuth-Thâqib":
"Hadrat Mawlânâ Thanvî ibârat me lafz 'aysâ' far mâ rahêhê lafz 'itnâ' to nahî farmâ rahehê - agar lafz 'itnâ' hôtâ to us
waqat aybtiya ihtimâl hôtâ ke ma`âdhallâh huzûr `alayhis-salâm ke `ilm ko or chîzô ke `ilm ki barâbar kardiyâ!"
"Hadrat Mawlana Thanvi in his text used the word 'aysâ' and NOT 'itnâ.' Had it been 'itnâ', this would have been finding a
SHORTCOMING ma`âdhallâh and making his `alayhis-salâm's knowledge like the knowledge of things!"
{Husayn Ahmad Tandwî (who later changed to Madanî), Shihâbuth-Thqqib, p. 102}
Further on, he writes:
"is se bhi agar qati nazar kar liyê to lafz 'aysâ' tô kalema TASHBÎH ka hê!"
"If we look at this clearly, the word, 'aysâ' is clearly a TASHBÎH(comparison)!"
(Husayn Ahmad Tandwî, Shihâbuth-Thiqâb, p. 102)
Allâhu Akbar!!
So according to Manzur Ahmad Sanbhilî's and Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangî's understanding of Thanvi's text, "aysâ" means, "itnâ"
and "is qadar" and the one who says that the word, "aysâ" is a "tashbîh" becomes a KÂFIR. On the other hand, according to Husayn Ahmad's understanding, the word, "aysâ" IS a "tashbîh" and whoever says that it means, "itnâ" commits KUFR ,{as they would
be finding a shortcoming in the Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)}. So who is right?
Hence, if I were to become a Deobandi and believe that all three of these scholars were correct, then I would have to believe that using the word "aysâ" with either meaning is going to be kufr!
They bent head over heals to try to defend Thanvi’s statement.
Their main aim was to put blame and insult on Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Ridâ Khan (r). But Allah Ta`âlâ saw their plans and ended up
putting the truth on their own tongues. They contradicted each other upto the extent that without realising it, they considered
each other’s interpretations of the word "aysâ" as KUFR!
Now, theyshould leave Imâm Ahmad Ridâ alone and keep quite about this whole affair, or be ready to call each other kâfirs first because their own interpretations go against each other. Why blame the Imâm of
Ahlus-Sunnah, Ala Hadrat Shah Ahmad Ridâ Khan (q) of giving his fatwa when your own "scholars" couldn't and can't defend the strange statement?
allâhumma Salli `alâ sayydinâ muHammadi(n)w-wa `alâ âli sayyidinâ wa mawlânâ muHammadi(n)w-wa bârik wa sallam!
Salâta(n)w-wa salâman `alayka YÂ RASÛLALLÂH!
wa `alâ âlika wa ashâbika YÂ HABÎBALLÂH!
As for Thanvî Sâhib himself, he didn't even bother to defend his text at all and changed it altogether. One of his sincere murîds
spoke truthfully and advised him to do this.
It also looks as though Thanvi concedes that the text desrespects the Prophet
(sal Allahu alayhi wasallam). His murîd said as quoted by Mawlana Thanvi himself:
“aysâ lafz jin mê mamsalat `ilmiyyat ghaybiyyat Muhammadiyya kô `ulûm majânîn-o-bahâ’im se tashbîh dî ga’î hê jô bâdî an-nazr mê sakht sô adabî kô mash`ar hê kyû aysî `ibârat se rujû na kar liya jâ’ê jis mê mukhlisîn hâmi’în janâb-e-wâlâ kô Haqq bajânib jawâbe dî mê sakht dashwârî hôtîhê wôh `ibârat âsmânî or ilhâmî `ibârat
nahî ke jis kî masdarah sûrat or hamiyyat `ibârat kâ bâlio yâ lafzî bâqî raknâ zurûri hey.”
“Those sort of words in which the Muhammadan Unseen Knowledge is comparred to that of madmen and sundry, after pondering over it,
is of extreme desrespect. Why shouldn’t one come back (make rujû`)over such a text in which the righteous and ordinary people like
us are being given answers the truth of which is being shown with such difficulty? That text is not from the heavens, nor is it
inspiration, like the sort whose beauty and respect has to be preserved by keeping every single word.
(Thanvi, Taghyîrul-`Unwân, p. 1)
So, Thanvi changed the text from:
"…agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z `ulûm
ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂ `ilm-e- ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`
Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê…”
“…if the words of Zayd are to be correct; with regard to it; that ghayb can mean some of the unseen or everything of the unseen.
If some of the unseen (ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya) is meant, how is it a speciality for him (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)? That sort of (aysâ) unseen knowledge has also been possessed by Zayd and `Amr, in fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry…”
(Thanvi, Hifzul-Iman, p. 7)
To:
"agar baz `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hey to is me Huzûr Sallallâhu `alayhi wa sallam kî kya takhsîs hey - mutlaq baz `ulûm-e-
ghaybiyya to ghayr anbiyâ `alayhimus-salâm ko bi hâsil hey."
“…if it is to mean some unseen knowledge, then how is this his Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam’s speciality - absolutely, some
knowledge of the unseen is also possed by non-Prophets `alayhimus-salâm.”
(Thanvi, Taghyîrul-`Unwân, p. 3)
Hence, he removed the word, “aysâ” altogether and changed the context and meaning of the sentence altogether. In fact, I think this is the only sentence in the whole book that was changed.
Anyway, the sentence shows that he believes non-Prophets can also have ghaybi knowledge upon them.
Just for the record, the following is the meaning given for the word, “aysâ” in the huge Urdu dictionery, “Firawzul-Lughât” by al- Hâjj Mawlawî Firawzuddîn:
“aysâ: is qisam kâ, is dahng kâ, is tarah kâ, is qadar.”
“this sort of: of the like of this, of this sort, like this,something like this.”
RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS Imam Ahmed Raza (rh) issued the fatwa upon Mawlana Ashraf ali nearly 1 year after Mawlana Ashraf ali’s book was in market. 1) Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangi al Deobandi (principal, Darul Uloom Deoband) writes that the word "aysâ (Urdu: this sort of)"is not only used as a "mithl" (to show similitude) but can also mean, "itnâ (Urdu: this much)" and "is qadar (something like this)." [Note: The truth is that "itnâ" (this much) and "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu are also used for comparisons!] accepted the meaning of ‘AYSA” as given by these 2 top deobandi ‘akabir”. This TAWIL ( interpretation) saved Mawlana Ashraf ali thanvee from the charge of Kufr.
SHOWING DISRESPECT TO PROPHET IS KUFR : FATWA FROM SHAYKH RASHID GANGOHI AL DEOBANDI
Below is couple of Fatwa from Deobandi scholars on the issue of Disrespect to Prophet.
The following fatwâ’ has been translated from the original Urdû book: Fatâwâ’ Rashîdiyyah, Page 71-72, printed by Muhammad Saeed and Sons, Karâchî, Pâkistân. The fatwâ’ was written by Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî, co-founder of Dâr ul-‘ulûm Deoband and Spiritual Shaykh of many senior Deobandî scholars. Rashid Ahmad is one amongst those whom the Imâm of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah, Imâm Muftî ash-Shâh Ahmad Ridâ Khân of Baraylî Sharîf, ‘alayhi al-rahmah w’al-ridwân, charged with kufr & which the ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh of Haramayn Sharîfayn; the Two Sacred Sanctuaries, endorsed in Husâm al-Haramayn [Sword of the Two Sanctuaries]. THE FATWÂ’ Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî, in reply to a question writes: Question No: 30 A poet who in his poetry uses words as idol or statue or calamity of Turks tragedy of Arabia in his compositions of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, what is the legal [shar’îy] ruling on this? Elaborate and be rewarded! Answer: The person expressing these ill words although does not intend the actual real apparent meanings rather intends the metaphorical and figurative meaning, nevertheless, [such words] are not void of inference of insolence, blasphemy and offence of the Unblemished Self of Allâh, Most Exalted and the Messenger of Allâh, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. For this very reason, Allâh, the Exalted, prohibited the [Prophetic] Companions from uttering Râ’inâ and instructed the usage of the [substitute] word of Unzurnâ. When in actual fact the purpose of the Companions, Allâh be well pleased with them all, was not by any means to intend the meaning which the Jews [deliberately mockingly] intended but since it was a means of pleasing the Jews and carried implications of hurting and offending the Messenger [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] thus, the ruling communicated: “Say not [to the Messenger, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] Râ’inâ but say Unzurnâ [Do make us understand]” al-Qur’ân 2:104 …… and likewise the speaking of the eminent Companions [Allâh be well pleased with them all] in the presence of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, with a raised voice was not, ma’âdh Allâh, intended to harm or offend, on the contrary it was merely due to their nature and character. However, since it carried implications of offending and disregard of honour and respect the ruling was thus given: “O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam], nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds may be rendered fruitless while you perceive not.” Al-Qur’ân 49:2 What an unambiguous ruling that though your intention was not to disparage however by doing so your deeds would become wasted and you wouldn’t even be aware of it. Also the same is in a Hadîth: “Kunya [nomen] yourself with the kunya Abî’l Qâsim” which was [later] prohibited during the Noble lifetime [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] for offending the person of the Master of the World, in that if someone was to call someone [with the same kunya] then thy will assuming thyself to be addressed confer attention even though the caller did not whatsoever intend to offend the Messenger of Allâh, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam. And, Ibn Mâjah reports that when Ash’ath bin Qays Kundî arrived he enquired, “O Messenger of Allâh, are you not from us?” And this enquiry, and knowledge of ghayb is with Allâh, was simply because all ‘Arabs from Quraysh till Kunda are from the Banû Ismâ’îl. So thee replied, “Do not accuse our uncles of adultery and do not negate our lineage from our fathers, we are the progeny of Nadar.” Behold! This word merely carrying a far reaching implication - to what extent the Prophet [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] rejected and prohibited and insisted on good manners of speech. ….. In sum, these words carried apparent insolence and offence hence to utter such words will be kufr: “Verily those who annoy Allâh and His Messenger [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] – Allâh has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.” al-Qur’ân 33:57 … It is said in Shifâ’: “That, when a person has uttered something when speaking of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, without intending to insult, neither to offend and nor does he believe it to be but has uttered for the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, words which constitute kufr [like] from cursing him or insulting him or falsifying him or associating that which is unlawful upon him or negating that which is indispensable upon him which for his status are [considered] blemishes, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, like associating a major sin …. or uttered something disrespectful out of sheer ignorance which is construed as a kind of verbal abuse even if his circumstances apparently illustrate that he did not intend to demean the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, nor did he rely on it or he uttered it merely through ignorance or due to distress and depression or due to influence of intoxication or due to lack of thought or by his tongue running away from him or uttered it in the heat of the moment. Then the legal ruling concerning such a person without hesitation is death.” [Qâdî ‘Iyâd bin Mûsâ Mâlikî D544H ash-Shifâ’ Vol 2 Page 203-204 Published by ‘Abd at-Tawwâb Academy, Multân] Hence, it is required that the writer of such kufr [entailing] words be severely reprimanded and if possible [to do so], if he does not stop then he should be killed because he is the harmer and offender of the Grandeur of the Exalted and His Messenger and Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And Allâh, the Exalted is Most Knowledgeable. Servant Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Fatwa "Uttering of words which may be thought to belittle the prince of the universe (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam) even where the intention of the person uttering those words is not to do so is liable to make such a person a polytheist". (Lataaif-i-Rasheediyah, Page 22, by Janab Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Ash-Shahaab-us-Saaqib, Page 57, Husain Ahmad Tandvi Madani.) * "He who utters a single polytheistic word is, in the eyes of all, a polytheist". (Al-lfaazaat-ul-Yaumiyah, Vol. 7, Page 234, by Janab Ashraf Ali Thanvi). * "With all his claim to adhering to Islam and faith and striving his best in this regard, a person who is insolent towards the Prophet and rejects the essentials of Deen is, without doubt, an apostate and a polytheist in the eyes of all Muslims".. (Ashaddul-'Azaab, Page 5, by Janab Murtaza Hasan Darbhangi.) * "He (Gangohi) also mentioned utterances which could be said to cause hurt to the holy Prophet (Alaihis Salaam), and declared that a person uttering polytheistic words should be deterred from doing so by all possible means, and if such a person does not refrain from doing so he should be killed because he has been insolent to Almighty Allah and His trustworthy Prophet (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam)". (Ash-Shahaabus Saaqib, Page 50 by Husain Ahmad Tandvi Madni and Lataa'if-i-Rasheediyah, Page 22 by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi.) * "All ulama are unanimous in holding that he who is insolent to, and belittles, the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam) is a polytheist and he who doubts the polytheism of such a person is himself a polytheist. . . The verdict of polytheism is passed on the basis of things, which are obvious, not wilful, or intended or deduced. . . The ulama have said that to show annoyance with the Prophets (Alaihimus Salaam) is polytheism even if insolence is not intended". (Al-lifaar-ul-Mulhideen, Pages 51, 83 and 86, by Janab Anwar Shah Kashmiri, a teacher at Deoband.) * "He who believes that the holy Prophet (Alaihis Salaam) is only as much distinguished from us as an elder brother is from the younger one goes, in our view, out of the pale of Imam. (Al-Muhannad Page 28, by ulama of Deoband.) * "Certain harsh words which have occurred in Taqwiyat-ul-Imaan (written by Isma'iel Dehlvi Phulti Balakoti) were intended to cure the ignorance prevalent in those days. . . The words used by Isma'iel Dehlvi are, of course, disrespectful and insolent. These words may never be used". (Imadaad-ul-Fataawa, Vol. 4, Page 115, by Thanvi.)
|
Main Menu
| Home |
| Urdu Section |
| English Section |
| Books |
| Ja-AlHaq Tube |
